Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Tynemouth Corporation Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, in pursuance of the Order of the House of 21st July, and agreed to.

North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Company Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (BRITISH VISITORS)

Mr. GILBERT: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether British subjects are allowed to visit British occupied territory in Germany; whether any special visa or permit is required on an ordinary passport in order to visit Cologne and adjacent parts of the Rhine; and will he state if such permits are freely granted by the British passport officers?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The passports of British subjects require to be endorsed for occupied territory by a British passport office, but no visa is required. Such endorsements are granted freely for temporary visits.

Mr. GILBERT: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that foreign timetables give no railway connections with British Continental services and the Ruhr
district of Germany; and can he make any statement as to the facilities open to British travellers who desire to visit this part of Germany?

Mr. PONSONBY: The answer to the first part of this question is in the affirmative. In regard to the second part, British travellers desiring to visit the Ruhr district can obtain, in Great Britain, through tickets to Cologne or the nearest frontier station, where re-booking is necessary to any further destination on the railway system which is at present worked by the Franco-Belgian Railway Régie. The hon. Gentleman is doubtless aware that the successful conclusion of the negotiations at present being conducted in London should lead, among other things, to the restoration of normal railway services in the Ruhr district.

Mr. GILBERT: Is it necessary for travellers who wish to go to the Ruhr district to obtain permits or visas from the French Consulate in London?

Mr. PONSONBY: I am afraid that I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BALKANS (ARMAMENT ORDERS).

Mr. STRANGER: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that extensive orders have recently been placed with armament firms in this country for the prompt delivery of war supplies in the Balkans; whether strained relations exist between certain of the Balkan States which may result in war in the near future; and whether His Majesty's Government has offered any suggestion to the Powers concerned for settlement of existing differences?

Mr. PONSONBY: It is the fact that orders have recently been placed in this country for military material, but these orders are not of a nature to justify the alarmist interpretation placed upon them by the hon. Member. The Balkan situation is passing through one of its recurrent periods of tension, but His Majesty's Government are carefully watching the situation and will exercise their good offices with a view to promote an equitable settlement of any difficulties which may arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

REVIEW (GUESTS' REFRESHMENTS).

Mr. J. HARRIS: 4.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that during the Naval Review certain guests of the Government entertained on the train and on various steamers were supplied with refreshments free of charge on the boats, but that part of the cost of the refreshments was demanded from these visitors when travelling by train; and whether he will explain why this differential procedure was adopted?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): No differential treatment was extended to any of the Government guests at the Naval Review. All the guests were supplied with meals, including liquid refreshments, free of charge on board the vessels, and dinner free of charge on the return train journey. But in the latter case funds did not permit of the supply free of charge of liquid refreshments, and consequently guests had to pay for what they desired in the way of drinks.

Mr. HARRIS: Was any warning given to the Press representatives before they ordered their drinks on the train that they would have to pay for them?

Mr. AMMON: No more warning was given to them than to others.

Mr. HOGGE: Why need my hon. Friend worry if he does not drink?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we to understand that alcoholic liquors were provided free by the Government?

Mr. AMMON: Yes.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is disgraceful.

GUN EXAMINERS (SICK PAY).

Mr. SNELL: 5.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that it is not the practice to give sick pay to gun examiners in the inspection of naval ordnance employed in the Royal Arsenal, although skilled examiners employed in the carriage inspection department and viewers employed in the Royal Gun Factory receive such benefits for a period of 10 weeks in any 12 months after a qualifying period of six months; and whether he
will give this matter his early consideration with a view of placing this grade of employés upon an equal footing in regard to sick pay?

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Hodges): As far as the practice in the Department under the Admiralty is concerned, the answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; as regards the last part, I am going into the matter with a view to seeing whether any modification in the present practice can be adopted.

OFFICERS' RETIRED PAY.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir P. RICHARDSON: 8.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty upon what grounds the recent 5½ per cent. reduction of the retired pay of officers is made upon the whole pay and not upon the amount added to meet the high cost of living only?

Mr. AMMON: It is not the case that in 1919 additions were made to the pre-War scales of retired pay to meet the high cost of living only, but entirely fresh scales, which for officers of considerable service were appreciably higher than the old scales, were then introduced, and it was decided by His Majesty's Government that 20 per cent. of the new scales should be regarded as due to the high cost of living in 1919. The fall in the excess cost of living over the pre-War figure since July, 1919, was approximately 27½ per cent. at the time the decision regarding the reduction was taken, and consequently a reduction equal to 27½ per cent. of the variable element of 20 per cent. or 5½ per cent. of the total retired pay has been made.

Captain Viscount CURZON: Does the index figure to which the hon. Gentleman alludes take any account of rates and taxes?

Mr. AMMON: The index figure dealt equitably with all classes of the community.

Viscount CURZON: May I ask for a reply. Did it deal with rent, rates, and taxes?

Mr. AMMON: No. I have said it dealt with the necessities of life.

Mr. KEENS: Is it not a fact that the index figures of the cost of living have reference to 13 articles only, and conse-
quently have very little reference, indeed, to the general expenss of such a class as is referred to in the question?

Mr. AMMON: The index figure has reference to all workers' wages.

Sir P. RICHARDSON: 9.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty on what basis the cost of living has been computed in determining the reduction of the retired pay of naval officers by 5½ per cent.; and whether he is aware that, in the case of such officers, the cost of the main items of necessary expenditure is rather increasing than decreasing?

Mr. AMMON: The basis on which the cost of living has been computed in determining the reduction of the retired pay of naval officers is the ordinary basis adopted by the Minister of Labour in computing the index figure for the cost of living.

Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: Do we understand that this reduction will not reduce the pensions of officers below pre-War rates?

Viscount CURZON: 13.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Committee have agreed to the payment of the withheld retired pay of naval officers; whether he is prepared to make any statement; and whether he can take steps to render the evidence given before the Committee available to Members?

Mr. AMMON: I would refer the Noble Lord to my reply of the 29th July to a supplementary question by the hon. Member for North Portsmouth. It is not proposed to publish the evidence which was not included in the report forwarded by the Committee.

Viscount CURZON: As we are to separate in a day or two, cannot the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Government accept the Report of the Committee or not?

Mr. AMMON: I am afraid I cannot say that. It is a matter obviously for the Cabinet.

Major HORE-BELISHA: 6.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, although the naval rates of retired pay have now been granted to those pre-War pensioned marines who
served as temporary Army officers, the rates appropriate to higher rank than that of captain have been withheld from those officers who attained and held field rank; and if he will state why the Lords of the Admiralty, who in all other matters connected with retired pay and pensions affecting ratings and marines have shown consideration for services rendered, should, in the case of marines who served as Army field officers, decline to fulfil the Regulations and grant the retired pay of the rank?

Mr. AMMON: The intention was to grant these officers the rate of retired pay which they might reasonably have been expected to receive, had they been granted temporary commissions in their own corps and not in the Army. In such a case, they would not have risen above the rank of captain, and to give them a higher rate of retired pay than that of captain would accord them preferential treatment over other marines, which could not be justified. They have already received much more favourable terms than have been accorded to pre-War Army pensioners granted temporary commissions in the Army. It is incorrect to state that the Admiralty declines to fulfil the Regulations in these cases, as the Regulations are applicable only to pensioned Royal Marines who served as temporary commissioned officers in their own corps.

R.F.A. "MAINE."

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 10.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if the Maltese crew which is to recommission the "Maine" is to be made up of ex-service or active ratings?

Mr. AMMON: The men of the R.F.A. "Maine" are mercantile marine ratings and the crew is selected by the master of the vessel.

ADMIRALTY SELECTION BOARD.

Sir B. FALLE: 11.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he can give the composition of the Admiralty Selection Board before which candidates for special entry and paymaster cadets must appear?

Mr. AMMON: For special entry cadets the Committee consists of a carefully selected admiral and a captain, Royal Navy, and one of the First Lord's
private secretaries. For paymaster cadets the Committee consists as for special entry cadets with the addition of the Paymaster Director-General.

Sir B. FALLE: The hon. Gentleman cannot give me the names?

SHIPWRIGHTS (MESSING ACCOMMODATION).

Sir B. FALLE: 12.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if it is proposed to abolish the separate messing accommodation in the Portsmouth depot authorised for naval shipwrights by Replies to Requests Nos. 12 and 23 of the 1922 Welfare Class Request; and if he will inquire into the matter?

Mr. AMMON: In view of the fact that extensive alterations have been made in the chief petty officers' block and an up-to-date bar and lounge fitted, it has been proposed that chief petty officers of all branches except engine room artificers, and possibly the regulating branch, should mess together. This will improve the accommodation at present provided for shipwrights. Another advantage will be that if the shipwrights vacate their present accommodation in the seamen's block it can be used to provide recreation and reading rooms for the junior ratings which are considered most desirable.

Sir B. FALLE: Will this mean a reversal of the Admiralty decision, taken in consequence of the Welfare Committee's request?

Mr. AMMON: No, that is not quite the position. The reply to which the hon. Gentleman refers merely stated that separate messes for shipwrights have already been provided at home ports except the Chatham Depot, where the shipwright ratings expressed a preference for the existing arrangements.

SPECIAL SERVICE SQUADRON.

Viscount CURZON: 14.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty can now state if they have been able to reconsider the question of affording the people of the capital of the Empire an opportunity to see and welcome back the officers and men of the squadron now engaged on the world cruise upon their return?

Mr. AMMON: His Majesty's Government have reconsidered this matter, and have decided to adhere to the previous decision.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is that because the men can go straight home to their wives?

Mr. AMMON: Yes.

Viscountess ASTOR: That is what they want.

YARDCRAFT SERVICE.

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: 15.
asked the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the urgent demands of the men engaged in the yardcraft service of the Admiralty for improved conditions, he will consider the setting up of a committee to inquire into and report on the position of the yardcraft service?

Mr. HODGES: So far as known, there are no circumstances which would warrant the expenditure involved in setting up a committee to investigate the subject referred to by my hon. Friend.

LODGING ALLOWANCE.

Sir CHARLES STARMER: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the question of making a lodging allowance to men who are compelled to work away from home and where they cannot get housing accommodation to remove their families?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Shaw): I regret that I have no power under existing Statutes to authorise the payment of lodging allowances in the cases mentioned.

Sir C. STARMER: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to get power?

Mr. SHAW: I will reconsider the question, but I cannot promise to ask for power.

Mr. J. JONES: Will my right hon. Friend make inquiries what the other Governments did?

Mr. SHAW: I do not need to make inquiries. I know.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

STOPPAGE OF BENEFIT.

Sir C. STARMER: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Mr. J. Harding, of 33, Pease street, Lingdale, Brotton, Yorkshire, had his unemployment benefit stopped for three weeks because he was forced to give up a job away from home by reason of the fact that the wages were only 37s. 2d. per week, which wages were insufficient to keep him and his family; that the Court of Referees disallowed this man's appeal against the stoppage; and whether he will consider introducing legislation to prevent stoppages under similar circumstances?

Mr. SHAW: I am having inquiry made into this case and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

MOTOR-CAR INDUSTRY.

Mr. LUMLEY: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men employed in the motor industry at the end of June, 1923, and at the end of June, 1924, respectively?

Mr. SHAW: There are no statistics showing separately the number of persons employed in motor-car construction, either in 1923 or in 1924. The only available figures relate to workpeople insured against unemployment in a group of trades covering the construction and repair of motor-cars, motor lorries, motor omnibuses, motor cycles, pedal cycles and aircraft. These work-people numbered, approximately, 193,100 in Great Britain in July, 1923, 159,900 being men, 18 years of age or over. The corresponding total for 1924 will not be available until after the annual exchange of unemployment insurance books, which is not yet completed. I may add that in this group of trades the number of insured workpeople unemployed, which is ascertained monthly, was 18,118 at the end of June, 1923, and 13,470 at the end of June, 1924.

Mr. LUMLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember saying last week that there were more people in employment in the motor-car industry at the end of June than in January of this year? If statistics were not available, on what did he base his statement?

Mr. SHAW: On the ground that unemployment is less now than it was at the beginning of this year, which was the statement I made.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: If the right hon. Gentleman has no statistics of those engaged in motor-car construction, have his figures any relevance; and would it not have been wise to ascertain the facts before he made his statement?

Mr. SHAW: I did not make a statement about motor-car construction. What I said was that there were more people employed in the motor trade now than at the beginning of the year.

Mr. LUMLEY: Before making his statement last week, did the right hon. Gentleman take steps to find out what had happened in the motor-car industry?

Mr. SHAW: Before I made the statement I took the greatest possible care to ascertain the facts.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALL: In saying that more men are now employed, did the right hon. Gentleman include all the various men engaged in washing, garaging, etc.?

UNEMPLOYMENT FIGURES.

Mr. GREENE: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour in which week he caused the number of 40,000 to be added to the unemployment figures issued by his Department?

Mr. SHAW: The alteration in method was first made in respect of the numbers who were unemployed on 10th March last. A detailed explanation of the change was given in my reply to the hon. Member for Aberdare on 19th March, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Sir H. CROFT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the whole of the 40,000 were added in one week?

Mr. SHAW: Yes.

Sir H. CROFT: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the actual week when the 40,000 were added?

Mr. SHAW: Yes. The 10th March.

EMPIRE SHIPPING (REPAIRS).

Mr. CLARRY: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in order to relieve the lack of employment in British ship-repairing yards, he will consider any proposals to give Empire shipping a preference in home ports providing that only Empire subjects are employed on board, and that all possible repair work and orders for new ships are entrusted to British shipyards or, alternatively, what does he intend to do to increase employment in these necessitous areas?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. A. V. Alexander): The particular remedy which the hon. Member suggests is open to the grave objection that it would introduce the principle of flag discrimination, which would be very prejudicial to British shipping. The problem is part of the general problem of unemployment, and cannot well be dealt with separately.

Mr. CLARRY: Can I have a reply to the second part of my Question, with regard to the alternative?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by the Minister of Labour on Monday, and to the previous answer on the subject.

Mr. LUMLEY: Will the Board of Trade devise a scheme for the relief of unemployment in shipbuilding centres?

Mr. CLARRY: What is the difficulty about making a discrimination in favour of Empire shipping?

Mr. J. C. GOULD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the American shipping companies are fined and taxed if they have repairs executed outside their own country?

Mr. ALEXANDER: It is not a matter that can be discussed by question and answer. It has been examined thoroughly and dealt with by the Imperial Economic Conference, and if the hon. Member desires to raise it further it can be raised in Debate.

CATERING TRADE (TRADE BOARD).

Miss JEWSON: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour how many workers are likely to be affected by the light refreshment
and dining room part of the catering trade for which he is proposing to set up a Trade Board?

Mr. SHAW: The occupational classification of the 1921 Census returns indicates that 140,346 persons are engaged in restaurants, catering, eating and coffee houses. Until, however, the investigation referred to in my reply to the hon. Member on Monday last has taken place and a case disclosed for applying the Trade Boards Acts to the dining room and light refreshment trade, I am unable to say how many persons will be covered by any board that may be set up.

Miss JEWSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman define what he means by the dining room and light refreshment trade? Will the Board include Soho restaurant workers who badly need protection? Will it also include the workers in the refreshment club here—or are our refreshments too heavy? Further, does he not think it a mistake to divide a trade in which all the workers need protection, especially in view of the fact that a previous Minister tried to set up a Trade Board three years ago and failed for this reason.

Mr. SHAW: The Trade Board itself will make the definitions. I am afraid that if I had to attempt to make them in answer to a question there would be protests from other parts of the House.

Viscount CURZON: Will the Trade Board cover the waitresses employed by the A.B.C. and Isaacs' fish shops?

Mr. BECKER: Would not the number of employés in light refreshment shops be greatly increased if the D.O.R.A. restrictions which tie them down were taken away?

Viscount CURZON: Can I have an answer?

Mr. SHAW: I have already said that the definitions would be decided after the inquiry has been concluded. I cannot speak definitely on the point.

HOUSING (BUILDING OPERATIVES' DEMANDS).

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 26.
asked the Minister of Health if the demands of the
building operatives are conceded, what it is estimated will be the extra cost, respectively, of a parlour and non-parlour house built under the State-assisted housing schemes?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Wheatley): The demands of the operatives are not uniform throughout the country, but where the demand is for ½d. an hour, it is estimated that the average increase in cost of a workmen's house entailed thereby would be about £4. As regards the further demand for payment for lost time, sufficient information is not at present available to enable an estimate to be given.

Sir K. WOOD: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account the demand in regard to hours, and does he not think that will have a serious effect upon his scheme?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I have tried to give all the information I have.

HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

Sir B. FALLE: On a point of Order. A newspaper is being read on the Front Bench.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: Can we be told what newspaper it is that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Webb) is reading?

Mr. W. THORNE: The "Daily Mail." [HON. MEMBERS " Daily Herald! "]

Sir K. WOOD: 28.
asked the Minister of Health whether any local authorities have, in respect of their housing contracts, conceded the terms demanded by the building operatives in the present dispute; and what action he is taking in the matter?

Mr. WHEATLEY: The terms of engagement of building trade operatives would primarily be a matter between the operatives and contractors concerned, and I have no knowledge whether, in connection with a contract for a local authority's housing scheme, the claims put forward by the operatives have been conceded. As I informed the hon. Member on the 16th instant, I propose to take no steps favouring one side or the other in the dispute.

Sir K. WOOD: Inasmuch as the central authority is already doing this, would the right hon. Gentleman make some com-
munication to them in order that there may be some definite understanding amongst the authorities up and down the country?

Mr. BECKER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he agrees with the terms of the men's demands?

Mr. J. JONES: Yes. Why not?

POPLAR GUARDIANS (SURCHARGE).

Sir K. WOOD: 27.
asked the Minister of Health what steps will be taken to enforce the payment of the surcharges of £3,699 recently made by the auditor against the Poplar Guardians?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I have received appeals against the auditor's decision from all the guardians surcharged, and am informed that statements of the grounds of appeal will be submitted to me in a few days' time. The appeals will then receive consideration.

Sir K. WOOD: Is not the Minister of Health going vigorously to pursue this matter during the Parliamentary Recess? Will he give an undertaking that he will not allow this matter to slide whilst we are having our holidays?

Mr. LANSBURY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask him whether in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-day he will give particulars of this surcharge and the period that it covers? Is he aware that that period is 18 months and the expenditure £1,500,000, thus disproving the statement made by—[Interruption.]

Mr. MARCH: Hon. Members opposite do not want to hear the facts.

REDCAR (FORESHORE PARK).

Sir CHARLES STARMER: 29.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received a resolution, passed unanimously at a largely attended meeting of ratepayers in the borough of Redcar, in the North Riding of Yorkshire, supporting the action of the council in proposing to lease four acres on the foreshore for the purpose of a pleasure park; and whether,
seeing that it is intended to provide pleasure for large numbers of people, he Will give an early and favourable answer to the petition of the council, especially having regard to the fact that it is so largely supported by the public?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I have received the resolution. A local inquiry into this application is being held to-day, and I hope that it will be possible to give a decision immediately.

SLAUGHTER-HOUSES (INSPECTION OF MEAT).

Mr. McENTEE: 30.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Regulations which he proposes to make, providing for the inspection of meat at the time of slaughter, include a provision that occupiers of slaughter-houses shall give notice of their intention to slaughter to the medical officer of the local authority; if so, whether he is aware that in many cases such notice will be ineffective; whether he will consider the advisability of making provision for the notice to be given in all cases direct to the officer whose duty it will be to make the inspection; and whether, before coming to a contrary decision, he will accede to the request of the Sanitary Inspectors' Association to receive a deputation to discuss the point?

Mr. WHEATLEY: The provisions of the draft Regulations specify the medical officer of health as the officer to whom notices of slaughtering are to be sent, but the local authority is empowered to direct that such notices are to be sent to the sanitary inspector or any other specified officer in lieu of the medical officer of health. I have already written to the Sanitary Inspectors' Association acceding to their request for the reception of a deputation to discuss this and other points arising on the draft Regulations.

Sir J. NALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this question and similar ones frequently come before the Local Legislation Committee in this House in connection with the Bills of local authorities, and will he take steps to incorporate this in a public Act so as to avoid the necessity of local authorities having to make special provision in local Bills?

BUILDING MATERIALS BILL.

Sir F. HALL: 31.
asked the Minister of Health whether it is the intention of the Government to amend the Bill which has been introduced to deal with the question of the prices of building materials so as to enable the Government to take over building works without compensation in cases in which terms cannot be agreed; and, if so, will he state when an official announcement of the Government's policy on this matter will be made to the House?

Mr. WHEATLEY: The answer to the first part of the question is "No." As regards the last part I hope that it will be possible to take the Second Reading of the Building Materials (Charges and Supply) Bill early in the Autumn Session.

Sir F. HALL: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the speech made by the learned Attorney-General recently, and was the Attorney-General speaking on behalf of the Government or not, or does the right hon. Gentleman dissociate himself from the Attorney-General?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I have not had the pleasure of reading the speech referred to. I have no doubt that it would be most interesting, and if the hon. Member will send me a copy I will take care to read it during the holidays.

Sir F. HALL: As so much publicity has been given to the speech of the Attorney-General, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Attorney-General to send him a copy of the speech?

BIRTH CONTROL.

Mr. THURTLE: 32.
asked the Minister of Health if new legislation is necessary before local authorities could be authorised to give information concerning birth control at maternity centres?

Mr. WHEATLEY: The question whether further legislation would be required is not free from doubt, but in any case, as I have already informed the hon. Member, I am not prepared to sanction the use of maternity centres for so controversial a purpose without the express directions by Parliament.

Mr. THURTLE: Is it the view of the right hon. Gentleman that he now has executive power to grant this permission if he so wishes?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am not quite sure whether I have, but even if I had I would not introduce such a revolutionary change.

Mr. W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any reason to explain why the families of the poor working-classes are larger than those of the wealthy classes?

SERPENTINE (BATHING FACILITIES).

Mr. J. HARRIS: 36.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether all the privileges and facilities which existed prior to the War for children desiring to bathe in the Serpentine have now been restored to them?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Jowett): No changes have been made and the arrangements are the same now as before the War.

Mr. HARRIS: Will any steps be taken to bring that fact to the notice of the children of London?

ANCIENT MONUMENTS.

Major CHURCH: 37.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will exercise his powers under the Ancient Monuments Act of 1882, 1900 and 1910, as well as under the Consolidation and Amendment Act of 1913, so as to schedule Hadrian's Wall in order to ensure its preservation?

Mr. JOWETT: Unless in cases of immediate urgency, my Department awaits recommendations from the Ancient Monuments Boards before scheduling monuments. I am not aware that there is any need to depart from this practice in the case of any portions of the Roman Wall. I may say, however, that the Ancient Monuments Board for England recently recommended for scheduling a few of the sections of the wall which are still preserved, and they will no doubt deal with other sections in
due course. I should, perhaps, add that the power of scheduling is confined to that given by the Act of 1913. The Act of 1913 repeals the earlier Acts. Scheduling only imposes on the owner an obligation to give this Department notice before altering, adding to, or removing the scheduled monument. It gives no power to require the owner to keep it in repair.

Mr. J. JONES: Is the House of Lords going to be referred to this committee on ancient monuments?

Sir FREDRIC WISE: Where is the money to come from if these powers are to be extended?

Mr. JOWETT: There is no authority to purchase.

Sir F. WISE: For the excavations.

Mr. JOWETT: Parliament will supply it.

Major CHURCH: 38.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that there are in England, Scotland and Wales a number of ancient monuments and historic buildings of large size and major importance which are falling rapidly into decay through neglect on the part of the owners; can he state whether the dangerous and decayed condition of such buildings is reported by officers of his Department; and are representations made to the owners that repairs should be carried out?

Mr. JOWETT: My Department, through its inspectors and their local correspondents, does what it can to keep a watch upon the condition of ancient monuments and historic buildings scheduled under the Act of 1913, and when cases of neglect are reported representations are made to owners as to the need for carrying out repairs.

Major CHURCH: Is any portion of the large sums which are sometimes received by the owners of ancient monuments ever allocated for the repairs of those buildings or their preservation?

Mr. JOWETT: Not by us. It is in the owner's own discretion.

Mr. B. TURNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman take a look at Holyrood and see what he can do to preserve it?

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Is it not a fact that in any number of cases the owners spend far more than they receive on the maintenance of those ancient buildings?

Mr. JOWETT: I am quite sure that it is.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

ROYAL BERKS REGIMENT (LATE PRIVATE MASKELL).

Mr. STRANGER: 40.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that an application for a pension on behalf of A. Maskell, father of Private George Maskell, No. 17,462, late Royal Berks Regiment (regimental number 11/p.p./56,406), who was killed in the War, was refused, the reason given in the letter to the father being that, in view of his circumstances, he could not be in pecuniary need; and whether, having regard to the fact that A. Maskell is a man over 60 years of age, is totally without money, and by reason of physical disability only able to work occasionally in fine weather at his occupation of an agricultural labourer, the matter can be reconsidered by the Ministry?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Mr. Muir): My right hon. Friend is having inquiries made regarding this case. A communication will be addressed to the hon. Member at an early date.

MEDICAL OFFICERS (OVERSEAS SERVICE).

Sir F. HALL: 41.
(on behalf of
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is satisfied that, in selecting medical officers for discharge from his Department, those who have not served overseas are discharged before those who, if equally efficient, have served overseas; and whether he is satisfied that no medical officer without overseas service is retained in a position for which an officer with overseas service is eligible and equally suitable?

Mr. MUIR: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative, subject always to the paramount consideration of efficiency of the public service.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

HULL-KING'S CROSS TRAINS (OVERCROWDING).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 43.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the frequent overcrowding of the trains between Hull and King's Cross and between King's Cross and Hull, especially in regard to the third-class compartments; if he is aware that passengers have recently had to travel the whole journey standing in the corridors or sitting on their luggage in the corridors: and whether he will bring this matter to the notice of the railway company concerned?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): My attention has not previously been directly to overcrowding on the particular service referred to, but I will call the attention of the railway company to the hon. Member's complaint.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the hon. Gentleman any powers if the railway companies pay no attention to him?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it not a fact that the attention of the Minister of Transport has been called to complaints of overcrowding on the North-Eastern, the Midland and the Scottish routes, and that the overcrowding at present is worse than it was when his attention was called to it originally, and what steps, if any, does he intend to take to secure the safety of the travelling public?

Viscount CURZON: Can the hon. Gentleman institute a special inquiry, covering all the railways of the country, into this question of overcrowding?

Mr. GOSLING: I think that a great deal of the trouble at the moment is owing to the abnormal traffic—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—owing to the Exhibition. I think that that is beyond dispute. Wherever there are cases demanding attention, I do look into them, and I do the best I can.

Mr. HOFFMAN: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet circularised the local authorities with regard to their powers in this matter, as he stated in reply to a question put by me a little while ago?

Mr. LUMLEY: Is it not a fact that ever since the amalgamation, two years ago, the service to Hull has been much worse than it was ever before? Will he bear that fact in mind if he or his Government consider still further amalgamations?

Mr. E. BROWN: Will the hon. Gentleman consult those Members who went to the Holland by-election, and get their opinion as to the monstrous overcrowding on this line?

ACCIDENTS TO FOOT PASSSENGERS, LONDON.

Mr. NAYLOR: 44.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the further increase in the number of fatal and other traffic accidents in London during the three months ended 30th June, he proposes to take any steps to bring about a reduction in the number of such accidents and to secure the greater safety of foot passengers?

Mr. GOSLING: I need hardly say that every effort is made by the authorities concerned to ensure the safety of foot passengers in London, and I hope that the setting up in the near future of the Advisory Committee, under the London Traffic Bill, will lead to a closer co-ordination of these efforts.

MOTOR-COACH ACCIDENTS

Viscount CURZON: by Private Notice
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the very serious motor-coach accident at Blockley, whereby seven women and children have been killed, and nine so seriously injured that comparatively little hope is entertained for their recovery; whether his attention has also been called to another motor-coach accident on Abbotsbury Hill, near Weymouth, whereby 15 casualties have been caused, two of a very serious character, out of the 24 occupants of the vehicle; whether he is aware that both these cases were apparently due to failure of the brakes; whether the Ministry of Transport will hold an inquiry into both these cases with special reference to the adequacy and efficiency of the braking systems and the competency of the drivers and state of the road surface in each case, and whether steps will be taken to publish the result of such inquiry?

Mr. W. THORNE: Before the hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask whether
he has seen a report in the papers to the effect that, so far as one of the accidents was concerned, the driver said he could not throttle his engine?

Mr. GOSLING: All reports that reach me of serious accidents on highways are referred to the Divisional Road Engineers of my Department for informal investigation, but I am not yet in a position to state the causes of the particular accidents to which the Noble Lord refers. I am unfortunately not at present empowered to hold inquiries into accidents, and, as the Noble Lord is aware, I have promoted a Bill to secure the requisite power. I very much regret that it has not been possible to pass the Bill before the Adjournment, but I hope to press forward with it in the Autumn.

Viscount CURZON: Has it not been the practice of the hon. Gentleman's Department to be represented at any inquiry into serious accidents which may take place, and will he see to it that a representative of his Department is present at any inquiry which takes place as the result of these accidents?

Mr. GOSLING: So far as the inquiry is concerned, I will give all the information that I have. I do regard the matter as serious and requiring attention.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NALL: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps in the autumn to ensure that authority is given to licensing authorities properly to inspect as to the fitness of vehicles for letting out on hire?

Mr. SPEAKER: Notice must be given of that question.

ASIA MINOR (REFUGEES).

Lord HUGH CECIL: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will recommend to Parliament a grant of public money to assist the 100,000 Christian refugees from Asia Minor who are now in Greek territory; and whether the Italian and Belgian Governments have made similar grants?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): His Majesty's Government, together with the Italian Government, among others, have already contributed considerably to the alleviation of the lot of these refugees, and
continue in their endeavours to enlist public sympathy in this country for them, but in view of the many calls upon them the Government do not feel justified in recommending any further grant of public money under this head.

Mr. J. HARRIS: When the Prime Minister says that the Government has contributed, does that include any response to the recent appeal from the League of Nations?

Mr. HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman direct a question to the Northern Government of Ireland as to whether they will give compensation to refugees from Northern Ireland?

The PRIME MINISTER: With reference to the League of Nations, we have not been satisfied that the conditions under which it was dispensed deserved the grant asked for. We are always anxious to do what we can for refugees, but we must do it carefully and under conditions which will ensure that for 20s. given the refugee gets 20s. worth of benefit.

Mr. J. HARRIS: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep an open mind until he gets to Geneva?

The PRIME MINISTER: My mind is always open.

CEREAL CROPS (ACREAGE STATISTICS).

Sir F. WISE: 47.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can state the number of acres under wheat in 1924 and 1923, respectively; and the number of acres under grain for the same period?

Mr. PARKINSON (for Mr. BUXTON): The total area returned as under wheat in England and Wales in 1923 was 1,740,000 acres, and under all kinds of corn 5,611,000 acres. The tabulation of the Returns for 1924 is not yet completed, but it is hoped to publish the figures in the course of the next few days.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

BANK HOLIDAYS (TELEGRAMS).

Major STROTHER STEWART: 49.
asked the Postmaster-General if he is
aware that on August Bank Holiday it was impossible to get post offices to accept telegrams for towns in England; that, through the dislocation of the railway traffic and the consequent missing of trains, much inconvenience and anxiety was caused through telegraphic communication not being available; and whether in future he will take steps to ensure that the Post Office telegraph system is made available to the public on public holidays?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hartshorn): Telegraphic facilities provided on Bank Holidays are normally adequate for public requirements. Any general extension of the hours of attendance would involve expense out of all proportion to the use likely to be made of the additional facilities, and I regret that I should not be justified in authorising such an extension.

Major STEWART: This is a public service and the public requires special facilities. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman arrange that we have full public facilities at this time?

Mr. RAWSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that sometimes it takes as long as 11 minutes to get a reply from the toll exchange downstairs in this House, and that the telephone service is very much worse since the present Government came into office?

BRISTOL (MR. R. R. MONTAGUE).

Mr. BAKER: 51.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that Mr. R. R. Montague is an applicant for employment as a skilled telegraphist in the Bristol Post Office; that Mr. Montague joined the service of the Marconi Company at the age of 17 years on 29th October, 1917, and was appointed to the sea-going staff on 13th September, 1918; that he was attested at Whitehall on 13th June, 1918; that owing to the important nature of his service as a wireless operator on the Steamship "Clan Maclaren" he was not called up for service with the Forces; and that Mr. Montague is held to be ineligible for an appointment to the established staff of the Post Office on the ground that he was not called to the colours; and whether, in view of the shortage of skilled telegraphists and having regard to the nature elf the service rendered by Mr. Montague, he will reconsider the decision?

Mr. HARTSHORN: I am aware of the case to which the hon. Member refers. There is no shortage of skilled telegraphists, and there is a long waiting list of qualified ex-service men seeking permanent employment in the Post Office in that capacity. Mr. Montague is not an ex-service man, and, in the circumstances described, I can find no grounds for treating him exceptionally. It may be possible, however, to give him temporary employment at Bristol for a short time.

Mr. J. C. GOULD: Does the right hon. Gentleman not admit that a man who served in the mercantile marine during the War is equally as eligible as a man who served in the Navy?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

WAR OFFICE (CLERKS AND TRADE UNIONS).

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: 52.
asked the Secretary of State for War what steps are being taken to withdraw Circular Gen. No. 6/6,618 (F6), which calls upon clerks and writers to sever all connection with trade unions?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Major Attlee): The hon. Member does not quite correctly state the purport of the Circular. It is only that portion of the clerical staff which is being brought on to the permanent pensionable establishment that is affected. The Circular was issued with the full concurrence of the staff side of the appropriate Whitley Council.

ADMINISTRATIVE CLASS (APPOINTMENTS).

Sir HENRY CRAIK: 68 and 69.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (1) what undertakings, given as a result of the recommendations of the Lytton Committee, prevent a resumption of appointments to the administrative class from the 1921 list, in view of paragraph 31 of the Final Report of the Southborough Committee, in which it is stated that effect has already been given to the recommendations of the Lytton Committee in regard to the administrative class;
(2) whether, when normal recruitment of the administrative grade by open competition is resumed, under paragraph 31 of the Final Report of the Southborough Committee, the claims of the candidates
who took the open competition of 1921 will be reconsidered before arrangements are made to hold further open competitions for that class?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): The statement in the Final Report of the Southborough Committee to which the hon. Member refers is coupled with the statement that it is proposed to extend somewhat the period during which appointments may be made from ex-service candidates at the examination held in accordance with the recommendation in the Third Interim Report of the Lytton Committee and with the further suggestion that the normal method of recruitment should be resumed as and when sufficient vacancies exist. The list of candidates from the 1921 open competition has already been kept open for two years beyond the normal period, and I regret that I am unable to reconsider the decision to close the list as from 31st March last.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is the hon. Member aware that several of those who passed the 1921 examination, and are now waiting for appointments, were men who served in the War, and, after serving in the War, returned to their studies, prepared for and passed the open examination, and obtained high places in the list, and are they not still being kept out from any employment because preference has been given to those who have been temporarily employed, without passing any examination?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have very great sympathy with my right hon. Friend's points. There is undoubtedly difficulty, but the list was kept over for more than two years, and the real problem is the competition of these ex-service men with other ex-service men who have also claims to be appointed.

Sir H. CRAIK: But is the ex-service man who, after serving in the War, goes back, resumes his studies, and then passes the open examination, not a very much superior one to the ex-service man who, with small qualifications, accepts a temporary post and then keeps out this better qualified man? Is not the hon. Member aware that this is detrimental, and is proving itself detrimental to the service generally? I ask for the consideration of the Prime Minister.

Mr. GRAHAM: I have already told my right hon. Friend, and he knows, that I sympathise very largely with his point of view, but I am afraid we are bound by the decisions of the House in these matters. It is a very difficult thing to reconcile these claims, but I am satisfied that we should not keep this list open longer. It has already been kept open for two years beyond the time.

Sir H. CRAIK: Is not the first thing to look upon the efficiency of the service, and is not that efficiency being injured by the present procedure?

SEX EQUALITY.

Miss JEWSON: 67.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will set up a committee to discuss the question of equal pay for equal work for men and women in the Civil Service?

Mr. GRAHAM: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave on this subject on the 3rd July to the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth, of which I am sending her a copy.

Viscountess ASTOR: A most unsatisfactory reply!

Miss JEWSON: Does not the hon. Member think that that reply was contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the Sex Disqualification Removal Act?

Viscountess ASTOR: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it was contrary to the election promises of the Labour party?

Mr. GRAHAM: The Government had to consider whether under the existing conditions this very large expenditure could be faced, and the decision was that at the moment it could not be faced.

Viscountess ASTOR: The Government should have considered that point when they were making the promise.

Mr. J. HARRIS: Are we, as a nation, not committed to support this principle in the Treaty of Versailles, and if we are committed to support this principle, should not the Government Departments set an example?

Mr. GRAHAM: The position, I think, is that we are quite committed to the principle of equality of opportunity, and
generally, also, on the question of equality of pay, but, as I view it, this is very largely a practical matter of how soon that can be attained, and the decision is that at the moment the funds cannot be found for this very large expenditure.

Mr. W. THORNE: Have not the Government already recognised this principle, because the lady Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour receives the same salary as other Parliamentary Secretaries??

Viscountess ASTOR: That is a different matter.

EX-RANKER OFFICERS.

Major HORE-BELISHA: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for War what was the regimental pay of the private soldier in August, 1914, and in November, 1918; if he still concurs in the statement contained in the Report of the Ex-Ranker Officers' Committee that men who served in the trenches for 1s. a day in 1914 were followed later by others who were paid half-a-dozen times as much; if so, will he give the title and date of the Order which authorised the payment of 6s. a day to private soldiers who served in the trenches during the War; the approximate number of men who served in the trenches at the higher rate, and if they continued to draw such rates as private soldiers until the end of hostilities; and will he indicate under what circumstances these favoured soldiers served in comparative comfort with their less-favoured comrades in the trenches?

Major ATTLEE: The answer to the first part of the question is that the regimental pay of an infantry private in 1914 was 1s. a day, in 1918 1s 6d. a day. The remainder of the question is based on a misreading of paragraph 17 of the Report. This contains no suggestion that the higher paid personnel referred to were soldiers serving in the trenches, but, on the contrary, espressly contrasts the nature of the service as well as the amount of the pay. In these circumstances the specific questions asked do not arise, but I may say that the men who appear to be alluded to by the committee are the motor drivers, fitters and tradesmen of various kinds who up to a certain stage of the War were enlisted at 6s. a day and other rates
largely in excess of the normal infantry rate. Men enlisted with those rates retained them as long as they served.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the Report uses the words of this question, "were followed later by others?" Does he not agree that a statement of that kind invalidates the whole of the Ex-Ranker Officers' Report?

Major ATTLEE: Not in the least. As a matter of fact, I think the hon. and gallant Member has not read the Report quite as carefully as I have done, because what it said was that certain persons who served in the trenches got 1s. a day, and that certain people who served under conditions that were far easier and less dangerous got six times as much. Therefore, the statement of the Report is perfectly accurate.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

FISHERMEN (LOANS).

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: 54 and 56.
asked the Secretary for Scotland (1) whether he can state the amount of loans applied for and granted to Scottish fishermen for assistance to purchase fishing nets; and the number and amount of loans applied for and granted to fishermen in the Western Isles;
(2) in view of the fact that loans are now available to fishermen in Scotland who are able to pay a percentage of the cost price of herring-nets and gear, whether he is prepared to grant loans at a low rate of interest to those fishermen who, either on account of losses sustained during the War, or adverse post-War conditions, are unable to make any contribution towards the purchase price?

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I propose to answer these questions together. Twenty-two applications from Scottish fishermen have been received, of which 16, representing loans of £482, have been approved. No applications have been received from fishermen in the Western Isles. The results of the herring fishing for the current year, as compared with the results in 1923, are briefly as follows. The catch from 1st April to 2nd August is 774,829 crans in 1924, as compared with 635,115 crans in 1923. For the period from 1st
January to 2nd August, the corresponding figures are 1,016,269 crans in 1924 as compared with 738,513 crans in 1923. The increase in values is even more remarkable. For the period 1st April to 2nd August the total value in 1924 is £1,038,589, as compared with £572,672 in 1923. For the period since 1st January the value is £1,368,264 in 1924, as compared with £688,732 in 1923. In other words, the value of the catch since 1st January is higher by £680,000 than it was in 1923. I think these results show that there is not now the same clamant need in the industry as existed last year.
With regard to the hon. Member's second question, the position of the younger men, who would in ordinary course have acquired an outfit of drift nets, but have been unable to do so owing to War service or the post-War circumstances of the industry, is recognised under the existing scheme, which permits of loans of 75 per cent. to such men, as compared with the normal 50 per cent. I can hold out no prospect of loans being made on the conditions suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state one thing which is asked in the question, namely, what is the amount of loan that has been applied for?

Mr. ADAMSON: The number of loans asked for is 22, and the amount £408.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how the fishermen, who have no money, can benefit under the Government scheme?

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the terms of the scheme after the experience that he has gained to date?

Mr. ADAMSON: Hon. Members who are putting these supplementary questions had better see my answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. HOGGE: Arising out of that answer and in view of the fact that we go into recess for 12 weeks, and as these men require the money, does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that what we are asking for is whether the scheme has been successful, and whether he agrees that if only 22 men have applied for only £408 the whole thing is inadequate and useless?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is rather a matter for debate.

WESTERN ISLES.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: 55.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received a statement from the Lewis District Committee of the County Council of Ross and Cromarty, indicating schemes which they consider necessary to make the Island of Lewis self-supporting; and whether he can make a statement thereon?

Mr. ADAMSON: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As the statement was only received yesterday I cannot say more at present than that it will be carefully considered.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Does the right hon. Gentleman now realise that the Western Isles have a very deficient postal service? A letter takes a week to come.

SEXUAL OFFENCES.

Duchess of ATHOLL: 57.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that the Home Secretary has recently set up a Committee to inquire into the question of assaults and other sexual offences committed against children and young girls in England and Wales, he will consider the advisability either of setting up a Committee to inquire into the same question as regards Scotland or else of arranging with the Home Secretary that the reference to his Committee shall be widened in order to include Scotland, and that a Scottish representative or representatives shall be added to the Committee for this purpose?

Mr. ADAMSON: In view of the differences in the systems of criminal investigation and prosecution in operation in England and Scotland respectively, I do not think that the course proposed by the Noble Lady of extending the reference of the Committee appointed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would be satisfactory, even if Scottish representation were added to the Committee. As regards the question, of a separate inquiry in Scotland, I would refer the Noble Lady to the reply to her question on this subject on 7th July last. I am, however, prepared to reconsider the matter in the light of the information which I undertook to obtain in response
to her question on the 4th August, and of any further facts which she may care to submit.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to receive a deputation of Scottish Members in reference to this subject?

Mr. ADAMSON: Quite.

INDIA (AKALI SIKHS).

Sir C. YATE: 58.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that during this year armed bands of Akali Sikhs, known as Jathas, have been collected by an organised body in the Punjab and marched through British territory, terrorising the rural population on the route, to invade the Nabha State and to take forcible possession of religious foundations there, whereby the Nabha State has had to maintain large armed forces to protect its institutions and that serious collisions, with loss of life, have taken place; and whether the British Government, which is responsible by treaty for the protection of the Nabha State against external aggression, will now take the necessary steps to prevent the collection of these Jathas in British India and the invasion of a friendly State?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Richards): The Government of India are in close communication with the Administrator of the Nabha State, and I have no reason to think that the policy which has been adopted is not the most likely to serve the common interest.

Sir C. YATE: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the telegram from Simla on this subject in this morning's newspaper, stating that certain of these men are being arrested; and will the Government now arrest the men who are organising and instigating the march of these Jathas?

Mr. RICHARDS: That is an indication that the Government is doing its duty.

Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: Is it a fact that it is now only with great difficulty that these processions are organised at all?

Mr. RICHARDS: I believe that is so.

HORATIO BOTTOMLEY.

Mr. JAMES GARDNER: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visitors the prisoner Bottomley received during each of the months from March to September, 1923, inclusive?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Rhys Davis): The numbers of visits, exclusive of ordinary family visits to which the prisoner became entitled under the Rules, were as follows:—March, 1923, 3; April, 18; May, 20; June, 15; July, 1; August, nil; September, 2.

Mr. HAYES: Were there any special reasons for granting such a large number of visits?

Mr. DAVIES: I have already pointed out that all the visits I have mentioned were for the purpose of clearing up matters connected with the bankruptcy proceedings in which the prisoner was concerned.

SWEEPSTAKES (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. J. HARRIS: 61.
asked the Home Secretary whether, seeing that an intimation has been given to the organisers of the Stock Exchange sweepstake that in future steps will be taken to prevent such procedure, it is proposed to extend this warning to other institutions organising similar sweepstakes?

Mr. DAVIES: Each case of an apparent contravention of the law relating to lotteries must he judged by reference to the actual facts. Everyone who organises a public lottery, whether it is called a sweepstake or by any other name, renders himself liable to prosecution, but I cannot promise that everyone who does so will be given notice to this effect.

Mr. FOOT: Can the hon. Gentleman give any assurance to the House that an opportunity will soon be afforded for consolidating and clearing up the law upon this complicated matter?

Mr. J. JONES: What about the Calcutta Club?

Mr. HOGGE: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to abolish balloting for tickets in this House?

SENTENCE ON SEAMEN, LIVERPOOL.

Mr. NAYLOR: 62.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the sentence of 14 days' hard labour passed upon two seamen found riding on the buffers of the Euston to Liverpool express on 1st August without having paid their fare; and whether, seeing that their committal was due to their inability to pay a fine of 20s., he will take steps to have the sentence reduced and the men discharged forthwith?

Mr. DAVIES: No facts have been brought to my notice that would justify any interference on the part of my right hon. Friend, but if my hon. Friend will inform me of the place of conviction I will make inquiries.

WHISTLING FOR CABS.

Mr. FRANKLIN: 64.
asked the Home Secretary if he will consider the re-establishment of whistling for cabs, which was forbidden as a war-time measure in order not to disturb the many wounded men in the hospitals of London?

Mr. DAVIES: Whistling for cabs is forbidden by a byelaw made by the London County Council under Section 16 of the Local Government Act, 1888, and the question of revoking or amending the byelaw is one for the discretion of the London County Council. My right hon. Friend has no power to take any action of the nature suggested.

Mr. HAYES: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind, if any representations are made to him on this subject, that whistling for cabs has a very bad influence upon the value of the police whistle and from that point of view is very undesirable?

CONFECTIONERY TRADE (ASSISTANTS' HOURS).

Duchess of ATHOLL: 65.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that there are a number of girls employed in the sale of confectionery from 9 a.m. until 9.30 p.m. with an hour and-a-half off for luncheon; that these girls get one day off per week and one Sunday afternoon only every third Sunday; and whether he
will exercise his powers under existing enactments or, if necessary, take further powers to have these hours shortened?

Mr. DAVIES: I have no definite information as to the hours worked by girls in confectioners' shops, but provided there is no contravention of the provisions of the Shops Acts neither the local authority, which is responsible for the administration of those Acts, nor the Home Office has any power to interfere. As stated in reply to previous questions, my right hon. Friend recognises the need for a Bill to amend and consolidate the Shops Acts and the question of the hours of these girls can be considered in connection with that legislation.

Viscountess ASTOR: Could these girls, possibly, come in under the catering trade? Could the trade board, set up to deal with girls in that trade, in any way bring in girls employed in confectionery shops?

Mr. BECKER: Is it not the case that two problems are involved—one that of early closing and the other that of shop assistants' hours; and does the hon. Gentleman propose to bring in legislation to regulate the hours of shop assistants and separate legislation to deal with the opening and closing of shops, or does he propose to include both in one Measure?

Mr. HOFFMAN: Am I to understand from the answer that the Government are prepared to take up the. Shops Bill, which I had the honour of introducing?

Mr. DAVIES: That is an entirely new question. The hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) will understand that there is no Regulation connected with shop hours for adult shop assistants. They may be worked any hours the employer likes, provided they get a weekly half-holiday. With regard to juniors, however, there is a law prohibiting hours beyond 74 per week, inclusive of meal times.

Mr. W. THORNE: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the people who employ these girls have a moral obligation to treat them in a humane way?

Mr. DAVIES: That is one of the reasons why the Government have under
consideration the consolidation and amendment of the Shops Acts.

Mr. BECKER: My question has not been answered. Does the Government propose to bring in legislation which will include both early closing and shop assistants' hours, or are these two subjects to be dealt with separately?

Mr. DAVIES: I cannot at the moment state what is the intention of the Government in that respect.

RETAIL EXCISE LICENCES.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 70.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of retail excise licences held by wine and spirit dealers who do not hold justices' licences, as on 30th June, 1923, or other convenient dates?

Mr. DAVIES: I have been asked to reply. I regret that there are no figures available beyond those contained in the annual licensing statistics, to which I would refer the hon. Member.

"WORKERS' WEEKLY" (PROSECUTION)

Mr. SCURR: by Private Notice
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department why police officers were instructed to raid the offices of the newspaper, "Workers' Weekly," and to arrest the editor; what charges have been laid against the editor; under which Statute he is being prosecuted; whether any further prosecutions are pending, and under whose instructions the present proceedings were instituted?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Patrick Hastings): I have been asked to reply. My attention was called by the Director of Public Prosecutions to an article in the "Workers' Weekly" which, in my opinion, constituted a breach of the law. In consequence, the Director of Public Prosecutions has been engaged in the necessary steps to ascertain the identity of the persons responsible for the article. The editor has accepted the responsibility and has been arrested. The raid and the arrest were carried out on the authority of a warrant granted by a stipendiary magistrate. The editor is being
charged with an alleged offence against the Incitement to Mutiny Act, 1795. I am not prepared to state whether any charge will be preferred against any other person.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Was this Act in force when certain officers in the Curragh were inciting to mutiny before the War?

Mr. MAXTON: May I ask the Prime Minister if he has read this article, and if he is aware that the article contains mainly a call to the troops not to allow themselves to be used in industrial disputes, and that that point of view is shared by a large number of the Members sitting on these benches?

Viscountess ASTOR: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The matter is now sub judice, and we must not enter into a debate.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. Does this question not raise the whole right and liberty of the Press in this country, and in view of the fact that this article largely expresses the views and findings of Labour party conferences, and expresses the view of some of the men who are at present sitting on the Front Bench and seeing that it raises the whole liberty of the Press in articles of this kind, does that fact not constitute it a matter of extreme public importance that this House ought to consider?

Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out to the House that anything said may tend to prejudice the case. I do not think anything ought to be said about the merits of the case. The only matter here is the action of the Attorney-General, acting on the information of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr. J. JONES: With all due deference to your ruling, the issue that has been raised is something more—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply we have received, I would like to move the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. Are we not entitled to raise this matter on the Appropriation Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly, in so far as the question of the Attorney-General taking action is concerned, but I do not
think we ought to enter into the other matters, for fear of prejudicing the parties.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask whether, during the period of the last Government—I think about 13 months—any newspaper offices were raided at all?

Mr. SCURR: I beg to give notice that I will raise this question on the Appropriation Bill.

Mr. DICKSON: I wish to ask the Attorney-General if any Members of this House who will be speaking in their constituencies next week express similar opinions to that contained in the article in the "Workers' Weekly," does that mean that we are subject to similar prosecution? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes.''] If so, they will probably lose half their party.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: I think I have disposed of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH TREATY.

SUMMONING OF PARLIAMENT.

STATEMENT BY MR. THOMAS.

Mr. BALDWIN: by Private Notice
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any information to give to the House on his return from Ireland?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Thomas): As the House is aware, in view of the Report of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the questions submitted to them, His Majesty's Government felt it necessary to confer with representatives of the Government of the Irish Free State and of the Government of Northern Ireland, and a joint meeting was held in London on the 2nd instant, after which the representatives of both Irish Governments returned in order to consult with their colleagues. I had already on the previous day informed the House that His Majesty's Government felt that it was an honourable obligation, binding upon the British people, to secure that the undoubted intention of the Treaty was carried into effect.
And, in order that that obligation might be fully discharged, His Majesty's
Government entered into an Agreement with the Government of the Irish Free State, duly signed on both sides, but subject to confirmation by the respective Parliaments, to remedy the defect in the Treaty disclosed by the Report of the Judicial Committee; and the purpose of the Bill, of which I have given notice for to-day, is to ratify and give the force of law, so far as this country is concerned, to that Agreement.
On the 4th inst., my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister received a letter from the President of the Executive Council of the Irish Free State, in which Mr. Cosgrave stated that, after the fullest consultation with his colleagues, he felt it necessary to urge upon the British Government the necessity of passing the Bill into law before the adjournment of Parliament, in order to remove finally from the minds of the Irish people the grave doubts and suspicions which the long delay in the setting up of the Commission had created.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister felt that he could not call upon Parliament to consider legislation which was certain to meet with serious opposition not only in this House, but in another place at the very end of the Session, and without at least allowing some period of time for reflection both here and elsewhere as to the grave issues involved. At his request, therefore, my right. hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I crossed to Dublin the night before last. We had the fullest and frankest discussion yesterday with Mr. Cosgrave and his colleagues. They explained to us the very serious difficulties with which they were faced; and we explained to them the difficulties confronting His Majesty's Government and the British Parliament. I hope and believe that this mutual exchange of views was of value to both sides.
As a result of that discussion, His Majesty's Government, feeling that they ought not to leave any room for doubt in the minds of the Irish people or of the world of their determination to carry the Treaty into effect, have decided to ask Parliament to meet again on the 30th of next month (September), instead of on the 28th October, as had been originally intended. On that date, unless in the meantime the Government of Northern
Ireland have nominated a member of the Commission, we shall move the Second Reading of the Bill, of which I shall give notice in a few minutes, and thereafter, in priority to any other business, we shall make use of all the powers available to us for the purpose of passing that Bill into law at the earliest possible date.
I will not pretend that the Free State Government were fully satisfied with this decision, or that they in any way receded from their view that the Bill should be passed into law forthwith. But I hope that, nevertheless, they will be able to satisfy their people that His Majesty's Government and the British people mean to keep faith with them, and to afford no shadow of an excuse for the accusation that this country has been in any way false to a Treaty solemnly entered into with the people of the Irish Free State. After the adjournment of the House to-morrow, therefore, we have until the 30th of next month before the Second Reading of the Bill. His Majesty's Government most earnestly hope that in that interval the Government of Northern Ireland will see their way to appoint their representative on to the Commission, and thereby to render the further progress of the Bill unnecessary. But let there be no mistake and no misunderstanding. His Majesty's Government accept the view that it is an honourable obligation undertaken by the people of Great Britain towards the people of the Irish Free State to secure that the Boundary Commission shall be set up, and that its recommendations shall be made effective by the Governments concerned.
The issues in this question are grave. They involve the honour and the good faith of this country. They are too serious to be the sport of party passions and politics. I venture, therefore, to believe that it is not asking too much of the Press and people of this country if I express the hope that, during the interval until this House meet again, they will refrain from any action which might awaken old suspicious or inflame old prejudices. It is, I am sure, the earnest hope of all of us that those suspicious and prejudices may before long be forgotten for ever.

Mr. BALDWIN: I purposely refrain from any comment on the statement which has been made, but I think, perhaps, it
would facilitate business to-morrow if I could ask a question of the Deputy-Leader of the House. The statement that the House will meet on the 30th September, of course, has come as a surprise. It will be within the recollection of the Government that a definite agreement was come to, through the usual channels, that the House should adjourn until the 28th October, and a part of the agreement was the affording of facilities to certain legislation to enable the House to rise by to-morrow. That part of the bargain has been kept. I quite see the difficulties of the position of the Government, but I want to ask them to consider, before the Adjournment takes place, whether they will be able to tell the House that, in the event of the proposed legislation passing, they will take no further business until the time that was originally agreed upon for the House to meet?
I would put this further suggestion to them for their consideration—and perhaps they would be good enough to consult again through the usual channels—whether the best form of Motion for tomorrow to meet the circumstances of the case would not be the Motion that was moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in 1921 and by the right. hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain) in 1922, which gave Mr. Speaker power, on the recommendation of the Government, and if he thought it desirable, to summon the House at any time? That would enable the House to be summoned on the 30th September, or at an earlier date if any unforeseen contingency made that desirable or necessary. There is one other point in connection with fixing a date by a Resolution of the House. If by any chance it were not necessary to proceed further with the Bill, the House would be obliged, after passing a Resolution, to meet on the 30th September. The proposal which I have made would obviate that necessity. I put that suggestion to the Leader of the House, and I should be very glad to consult him about it.

Mr. CLYNES: The right hon. Gentleman will, of course, recognise, as will the whole House, that the first arrange-
ment has been set aside by the force of circumstances over which we have had no control. I have to say, on behalf of the Government, in respect of his question, that we fully recognise the reason and the force of it, and everything will be done by the Government to meet the wishes which he has expressed.

Sir JOHN SIMON: Arising out of the statement of the Colonial Secretary, I should like to put to him three questions. First, I wish to ask whether the Colonial Secretary understands that, while the responsibility in this matter of course is the responsibility of the Government, in as much as the gravest interests of honour of all parties are involved, the party for which I am speaking at the moment are prepared to support the Government in the course that they think necessary and adequate to implement the Treaty without undue risk, whether that takes the form of meeting at the date that he suggests, or whether it takes the form, if necessary, of meeting sooner, or indeed, if necessary, of sitting on now. The second question which I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman is this: Would he think it well to make plain to the House, before the House separates, whether it is the policy of the Government to confine their proposed legislation to the implementing of the Treaty, without introducing either on one side or the other any qualifications which are not either expressed or implied in the honourable obligations of the Treaty itself as defined by Parliament? The third question I wish to put to him is this: Has the Colonial Secretary taken occasion to point out to the Government of Northern Ireland that under the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, 1922, an Act of this Imperial Parliament, the opportunity of the Government of Northern Ireland to opt out, or to contract out of the Irish Free State was given them by the very same Article as provides for the appointment of the Boundary Commission, and that this option by the terms of the Article could only be exercised provided that the Commission was so nominated, and has the right hon. Gentleman pointed out to Northern Ireland that in that view Northern Ireland is claiming to accept the advantage of the Article without discharging the burden imposed by it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Honour!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: That sounds rather like an argument on the Bill.

Sir F. HALL: It is taking an unfair advantage.

Sir H. CRAIK: It is causing mischief.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: I want to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, and I will promise not to make it the cover of a party speech. What I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman is this: With regard to the appeal that he has made to the Press, an appeal to which no doubt everybody would be anxious to respond if it were reasonably possible—[An HON. MEMBER: "Except the Liberals!"]—seeing that, in the judgment of those of us who sit on this side of the House and, as we believe, of a large number of people outside, the honour of this country is not involved in the legislation now proposed, but is entirely on the other side, does the right hon. Gentleman mean that for the two months that are to elapse before the Second Reading of this Bill, he expects complete silence in this country as to the controversy that must rage upon that point?

Mr. THOMAS: If any justification were needed for my appeal, it is to be found in the incidents of the last two speeches. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]

Sir F. HALL: They cannot play straight. They do not understand the meaning of the word.

Mr. THOMAS: I stated in the House last week that on the day that we took office we decided that we would make this question not one of party, but would endeavour to effect a settlement by both sides. I said to the representatives of the Northern and Southern people on behalf of the Government that we were convinced that a permanent settlement of this question could only be brought about by them themselves and no one else. I have never changed that view. I indicated the course that the Government intended to pursue. I repeat what I said to President Cosgrave yesterday, that, in our judgment, to attempt to introduce legislation at this stage and force it through by mere majority would not solve the question, but would render a solution ten thousand times more difficult, not only because the House itself is tired, but because an attempt to
say to any one section, "Unless you do this in a fortnight, so and so will happen," is not the way to get agreement. That, I pointed out, was the position of the Government, and it was not an unreasonable request to make to the representatives of Southern Ireland.

Mr. HOGGE: That is the position of the Liberals too.

Mr. THOMAS: It was to that request that the representatives of the Irish Free State, with all their difficulties, responded, and I am deeply indebted to them for that response. Therefore, do not let us debate it to-day or to-morrow. With respect to the particular reference, no, we have no right to ask you to abate your views in the interval. We have no right to ask the Press to fail to discharge what is their proper function, but we are entitled to say to the Press, when a certain section of them every day and whilst I was in Ireland yesterday blazingly announces that a Republic will be announced in a few days, that they do not understand that they are giving encouragement, not only to the enemies of the Free State, but to the enemies of the Empire as well. In other words, we do not ask anyone to sacrifice their principle or abate their opinions, but we do ask them neither to allow their party influences or prejudices to blind them to the paramount importance of getting peace in this matter

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with reference to business?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am quite sure that I must not allow any further questions—

Captain BENN: It is a question as to business.

Mr. SPEAKER: —unless it be purely a question about business.

Captain BENN: It is a question purely about business. When will the Bill be printed and circulated?

Mr. THOMAS: The Bill will be handed in at the Table by me in a few moments, and it will be printed and circulated to-morrow morning.

Mr. LANSBURY: When will the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill be taken?

Mr. CLYNES: To-day.

Mr. REID: No Member from Northern Ireland has yet asked a question. I shall not say anything provocative. I only want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of what he has said about not stirring up party feeling, with which I sympathise entirely, that when he makes statements and speaks of the honour of this country being involved, he would be good enough to remember that the people we represent consider that there was an honourable engagement made with them in 1920. They look on that Act as being infringed, and if he could stop the bandying about of questions of honour in this way—we say there is no question of honour involved—and if he could only throw the emphasis somewhere else, it would greatly conduce to improved feeling in Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (VISITORS).

Mr. HARVEY: I beg to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you are able to make any communication to the House with regard to the granting by the Lord Great Chamberlain of additional facilities for visitors to view the Palace of Westminster during the Recess?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have this morning received a communication to the following effect:
In order to meet the wishes of the Members of the House of Commons, the Lord Great Chamberlain has given orders that the Palace of Westminster will be open to the public on Wednesday during the Recess from 9 a.m. to 3.30 p.m., beginning on Wednesday, 13th August, and ending on Wednesday, 24th September.

Mr. MORRIS: I would point out that certain defacements have occurred, and I should like to ask whether arrangements have been made so that no further defacements of the same character can take place?

EDUCATION.

Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower local education authorities to make provision for continued school attendance and for purposes connected therewith.
This is a problem which has been with us for a long while, and it is a problem
which claims the attention of every earnest Member of the House. I believe this House will regret it if there is not some positive attempt made to deal with one aspect of the problem of juvenile unemployment, which was before us some ten weeks ago, but which then reached no solution. Ten weeks ago the House was considering the question of our unemployed boys and girls between the ages of 14 and 16 years. It was the general feeling of the House then that it was a great mistake that we should regard these boys and girls just as units in the labour market. It was felt that rather we should make every effort to put them under the care of the education authority, and that we should encourage the Government to devote the money, which it was then prepared to give in unemployment grants in connection with the unemployment scheme, to the provision of bursaries in order to encourage these children to continue at school. The Bill which I ask the leave of the House to introduce now is a Bill to empower local education authorities to make provision for continued school attendance and for purposes connected therewith. In very simple language it empowers such local education authorities as choose to take advantage of it—it is not a mandatory Bill—to continue compulsory school attendance of children between the ages of 14 and 16 years provided that they have not got employment, or offers of employment, or are not occupied at home. At the same time it places the duty on the local education authority to provide maintenance bursaries or scholarships for these children where, in the opinion of the authority, parents are not able to maintain them without assistance. At present we have large numbers of children leaving school in our urban centres and very often spending weeks and months without obtaining any regular employment. The tendency is for the parent to take the first job that comes along without regard to its future prospects for the child.
I believe that if the local authority received the powers that this Bill proposes to confer, the result would be that a great number of parents would keep their children longer at school, because they would be assisted to do so by the maintenance allowance, and they would then not withdraw the child until they were assured that the work the child was
going to had a better prospect than a great deal of the employment which children now go to from school can ever hope to have. It is a pitiful thing to see a child between the ages of 14 and 16 drifting about from one casual job to another with intervals of unemployment in between. By the action of this House, we have withheld the particular form of assistance that the Government originally proposed for such children. I am sure the intention of the House was that we should do something better. This Bill proposes to give the local education authority, where it wishes, that power. One progressive local education authority—that of the city of Bath—has asked for these powers, or powers very like them, and I believe there are other progressive authorities who would be very glad to avail themselves of the power, and, at the same time, to accept the duty, which is imposed along with the power, of providing the necessary maintenance bursaries for a large number of children who come under the Act. I beg to move, and I hope this Bill may receive support in all quarters of the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Edmund Harvey, Viscountess Astor, Mr. Barclay, Mr. Percy Harris, Mr. Lansbury, Mr. Raffety, Mr. Royle, Mrs. Wintringham, and Mr. Graham White.

EDUCATION BILL.

"to empower local education authorities to make provision for continued school attendance and for purposes connected therewith," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 30th September, and to he printed. [Bill 253.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. HOPE: Should I be in order to ask the Leader of the House what business he proposes to take after the Appropriation Bill?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): We propose to move the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-night, in order that we may take, in addition to the Appropriation Bill, the Lords Amendments to the London
Traffic Bill, the Lords Amendments to the Housing Bill, and the Lords Amendments to the Agricultural Wages Bill.
With respect to the last Bill, I regret to say it is not on the Order Paper, as it was not received from the Lords in time to permit of that being done; but I do not think the House will suffer any disability as a result.
In addition, it is intended to conclude the remaining stages of the Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis) Bill. For these reasons, we ask for the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Clynes.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House do meet To-morrow, at Eleven of the Clock; that no Questions shall be taken after Twelve of the Clock; that Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have reported the Royal Assent to the Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses; but that, subject to this condition. Mr. Speaker, at Five of the Clock, shall adjourn the House without Question put.—[Mr. Clynes.]

Mr. HODGE: I wish again to protest against this form of Adjournment Motion. I make this protest periodically now in the hope that the private Members of the House of Commons will see that this method of Adjournment is steadily depriving them of the very few rights that remain to them in this House. If hon. Members will look at the form of the Motion, it practically amounts to this—that the House would be counted at half-past twelve to-morrow, but could be maintained in session as long as Mr. Speaker requires, because we give the power explicitly in this Motion to Mr. Speaker not to adjourn the House until we have got the Royal Assent; but, apart from that, the Government are relieved from the necessity either of keeping the House or of maintaining sufficient Members in the House to move the Closure on any unnecessary speech.
I would like to remind the House, when we are told that private Members might abuse, as they may have abused in the past, this privilege, that there always is the power of Closure to prevent a frivolous intervention on the Adjournment, and that all the Government require to do is to move that Closure,
support it by a hundred of their own supporters in the Lobby, and they then can get an Adjournment. But there are many questions which private Members do not get the opportunity otherwise of raising which they can raise on the Adjournment we had a valuable example to-day. A question was put down by the hon. Member who represents the Isle of Lewis (Mr. Livingstone) with regard to the success of a certain scheme, and the Secretary for Scotland replied that he would circulate the facts in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Supposing a private Member desired to raise that question to-morrow? In the old days the Minister was required to be in attendance and he was expected to make a reply to that private Member. Now, when the Government take up so very much time, as they must necessarily do, of the House, the rights of the private Member are fast disappearing. When we get, as we have got, in this House three Front Benches, and when the rotation of Debate means that those who sit on those Front Benches are called in rotation long before the private member, the opportunity of a private member speaking on any subject at all is fast disappearing. I maintain that on the last day of the Session, when, on the Adjournment of the House, private Members may raise questions which are very essential to their constituents, it is the duty of the Government to maintain the House so that that can be done. What the Government have said in the past, and what Ministers of other Governments have said, is that the private Member himself ought to see that the House is kept. That is not the duty of a private Member. It is the duty of the Government to offer facilities to private Members to raise these questions, and it is not done. I appeal to hon. Members to support the old form of the Adjournment Motion which was simply "That this House do now adjourn," which means that it is the Government's duty to maintain a House and keep the Ministers on the Treasury Bench to reply to the speeches made in the House. If I can get any other private Member to tell with me in a Division, and in order to show that hon. Members desire to have their rights maintained in this respect, I shall go to a Division on this occasion.

M. RAWLINSON: I think some attention should be paid to this matter by the Government. This proposal goes further than any previous Resolution, and it is a vital thing that private Members should be able to bring up matters on the Motion for the Adjournment. I have never brought up matters on the Adjournment myself ever since I have been a Member of the House, but it is undoubtedly a very valuable right to safeguard. If hon. Members desire to bring up certain questions there should be a reasonable time allowed for discussion. Look at the position to-morrow. To-night we have a very large amount of work to do, and I rather gather from what the Loader of the House said that he was going to ask us to discuss Amendments which have not been printed, and which have not been placed on the Order Paper. The Measures to be taken tomorrow may take two or three hours, with the result that the Motion for the Adjournment may not be reached until three or four o'clock in the afternoon, and there will only remain about one or one-and-a-half hours for discussing that Motion, because at five o'clock the Speaker has to leave the Chair without Question put. In this way you are very seriously curtailing the rights of Private Members. I hope the Government will give some explanation on this point. I may say that O have been present at many Debates on the Adjournment, and I confess that I know of nothing more boring. Nevertheless, it is a right to which some Private Members attach great weight, and it is important that their rights should be safeguarded. The Resolution which we are now considering may curtail the Debate in the way indicated by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) through the Government not keeping a House. Supposing there is a troublesome subject being considered, the House may be counted out, and that brings the Debate to a close, or the Motion may be confined to a discussion on several subjects only for which an opportunity has been given to bring them before the House. I think private Members are entitled to some explanation as to why this extraordinary form of Motion has been moved.

Mr. CLYNES: Before I say a word on the other subjects which have been raised, I should like to express my apologies for
the failure to circulate the Paper relating to Russia, but this is due to the fact that at the last moment the representatives of Russia have agreed a Treaty, and therefore the Paper which had been prepared would not be in any way helpful, indeed, it would be definitely misleading in relation to the statement which the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs hopes to make later in the day. After his statement explaining what has been agreed and arranged, I hope the House will be able to proceed with the Debate.
With reference to the Motion on the Paper, it is not unlike previous Motions set down on the day of the Adjournment. The right hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) must have misunderstood what I said when he reached the conclusion that we were going to ask the House to debate Amendments from another place without their being in a printed form. What I said was that the Amendments were not on the Order Paper, but I am informed that they will be circulated in a printed form and be obtainable by hon. Members. With reference to the observations which have been made by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge), I do not think he has stated the case for Private Members in a form which would give them an advantage if that course were taken. If a Motion were down on the Order Paper in the terms he has suggested, it would still be competent for the House to be counted out at any moment.

Mr. HOGGE: Yes, and the Leader of the House would have to come here the next day. That is the whole point.

Mr. CLYNES: That is precisely the course which hon. Members would not like us to take. It is an enormous advantage to private Members to know on the day of the Adjournment how long they are expected to stay here, and the advantage of definiteness in this respect outweighs any of the other considerations mentioned by my hon. Friend. To-morrow will be essentially a private Members day, on which the Government do not desire that any of their business should be taken, beyond the purely ceremonial business relating to the Royal Assent to the Bills which have been passed. I ask private Members, who claim to be interested in raising questions on the Motion for the Adjournment, to support their fellow Members in sufficient numbers to prevent anything like the calamity occurring to which my hon. Friend has alluded. When hon. Members know that the House cannot be kept in being longer than five o'clock except for the purposes of the Royal Assent, I think they will accept that as being the better course to pursue.

Question put.

Mr. SPEAKER: The "Ayes" have it.

Mr. HOGGE: The ''Noes" have it.

Mr. SPEAKER: I ask those hon. Members opposing the Motion to stand up.

Six hon. Members rose in their places.

Mr. SPEAKER: The "Ayes" have it.

Mr. HOGGE: I think I am entitled to claim a Division, and I do so.

Mr. SPEAKER: I will allow the hon. Member to have a Division, if he likes.

The House divided: Ayes, 270; Noes, 20.

Division No. 195.]
AYES.
[4.40 p.m.


Ackroyd, T. R.
Bondfield, Margaret
Clayton, G. C.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Bonwick, A.
Cluse, W. S.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Ago-Gardner, Rt. Hon Sir James T.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hlllsbro')
Brassey, Sir Leonard
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips


Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)
Briscoe, Captain Richard George
Comyns-Carr, A. S.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Broad, F. A.
Costello, L. W. J.


Ammon, Charles George
Bromfield, William
Courthope, Lieut-Col. George L.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Cove, W. G.


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kant,Dover)
Buchanan, G.
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington,N)


Astor, Viscountess
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Crittall, V. G.


Atholl, Duchess of
Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)


Attlee, Major Clement R.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cape, Thomas
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)


Barnes, A.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Chapman, Sir S.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Charteton, H. C.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Church, Major A. G.
Dickie, Captain J. P.


Benn, Sir A, S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Clarke, A.
Dickson, T.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Clarry, Reginald George
Dixon, Herbert


Dodds, S. R.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Dukes, C.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Duncan, C.
Lamb, J. Q.
Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)


Dunn, J. Freeman
Lansbury, George
Romeril, H. G.


Dunnico, H.
Law, A.
Rose, Frank H.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lawson, John James
Savery, S. S.


Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)
Leach, W.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)


Egan, W. H.
Lee, F.
Scrymgeour, E.


Elliot, Walter E.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Scurr, John


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Lessing, E.
Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)


Falconer, J.
Lorimer, H. D.
Sexton, James


Fade, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Loverseed, J. F.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Ferguson, H.
Lowth, T.
Shepperson, E. W.


Franklin, L. B.
Lumley, L. R.
Sherwood, George Henry


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lunn, William
Shinwell, Emanuel


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Short, Alfred (Wednesday)


Gardner, J. p. (Hammersmith, North)
M'Connell, Thomas E.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Gibbins, Joseph
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J.R.(Aberavon)
Simon, E. D.(Manchester,Withington)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Mac Donald, R.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Gillett, George M.
McEntee, V. L.
Sinclair, Col.T.(Queen's Univ.,Belfst.)


Gosling, Harry
Mackinder, W.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Greenall, T.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Spence, R.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Mansel, Sir Courtenay
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
March, S.
Stamford, T. W.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Starmer, Sir Charles


Groves, T.
Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Stewart, Maj. R. S.(Stockton-on-Tees)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Meller, R. J.
Stranger, Innes Harold


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.
Sutcllffe, T.


Harris, John (Hackney, North)
Middleton, G.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Mills, J. E.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Harvey,C.M.B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne)
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Hastings, Sir Patrick
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Pialstow)


Hayes, John Henry
Morel, E. D.
Thornton, Maxwell R.


Hemmerde, E. G.
Morris, R. H.
Thurtle, E.


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Mosley, Oswald
Tout, W. J.


Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Muir, John W.
Turner, Ben


Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Viant, S. P.


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Naylor, T. E.
Vivian, H.


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Waddington, R.


Herbert, Capt. Sidney (Scarborough)
Nichol, Robert
Wallhead, Richard C.


Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel
Nixon, H.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Hirst, G. H.
O'Grady, Captain James
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Hodge, Lleut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Oliver, George Harold
Webb, Lieut.-Col. Sir H. (Cardiff, E.)


Hodges, Frank
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Hoffman, P. C.
Paling, W.
Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.


Hogbin, Henry Cairns
Palmer, E. T.
Wells, S. R.


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Westwood, J.


Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie
Porring, William George
Whiteley, W.


Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Perry, S. F.
Wignall, James


Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kennington)


Hudson, J. H.
Phillipps, Vivian
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Pilkington, R. R.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Isaacs, G. A.
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Purcell, A. A.
Windsor, Walter


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Raffety, F. W.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Raine, W.
Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.


Jewson, Dorothea
Rathbone, Hugh R.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Wright, W.


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Raynes, W. R.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford,E.)
Rea, W. Russell
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


Joynson-Hlcks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Remer, J. R.



Kay, Sir R. Newbald
Richards, R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Keens, T.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Mr. Frederick Hall and Mr. Warne.


NOES.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Linfield, F. C.
Robertson, T. A.


Becker, Harry
Livingstone, A. M.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Lyle, Sir Leonard
Stephen, Campbell


Foot, Isaac
Maden, H.
Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Marley, James
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Maxton, James



Harris, Percy A.
Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)
Raffan, P. W.
Mr. Hogge and Mr. Ernest Brown.


Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)




Bill read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Resolved,
That this House do meet To-morrow, at Eleven of the Clock; that no Questions shall be taken after Twelve of the Clock; that Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have reported the Royal Assent to the Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses; but that, subject to this condition, Mr. Speaker, at Five of the Clock, shall adjourn the House without Question put.

LEGITIMACY BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 254.]

IRISH FREE STATE (CONFIRMA TION OF AGREEMENT) BILL,

"to confirm a certain Agreement supplementing Article twelve of the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland to which the force of Law was given by the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act, 1922, and by the Constitution of the Irish Free State (Saorstat Eireann) Act, 1922," presented by Mr. SECRETARY THOMAS; supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Clynes, and Mr. Secretary Henderson; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 252.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Agricultural Wages Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Rhymney and Aber Gas Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

Manchester Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES BILL.

Lords Amendments to be printed. [Bill 251.]

Orders of the Day — LONDON TRAFFIC BILL.

Order read for Consideration of Lords Reason for insisting on one of their Amendments to which this House has disagreed.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Reason be now considered," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Gosling.]

Lords Reason considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 17.—(Short title and commence ment.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 21, line 6, leave out "twenty seven" and insert "thirty"

Lords Reason:

The Lords insist on their Amendment in Clause 17, page 21, line 6, to which the Commons have disagreed, for the following Reason:

Because they think that the Bill will not be given a fair chance unless the period for which it is to be in operation is as long as six years.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Gosling): I beg to move,
That this House doth not insist on its disagreement to the Lords Amendment on which the Lords insist, but proposes to amend the said Lords Amendment by leaving out the word 'thirty,' and inserting the word 'twenty-eight' instead thereof.
The House will remember there were two of the Lords Amendments with which the House disagreed. The first and the most important related to the inclusion of trams and trolley vehicles in the Clause which applies restrictions on London vehicles plying for hire. On that point I am glad to say the Lords have not insisted upon their Amendment, as I should have been compelled to regard it as vital. On the second Amendment, extending the duration of the Bill from 1927 to 1930, the Lords have insisted. During the course of this Bill I have had it impressed upon me by my friends and by those who are interested in keeping this Bill as a temporary Measure, that there should be as short a period to it as was consistent with getting ready other
legislation. I was persuaded, for that reason, to limit the period to three years, and I was supported against the proposals made in another place. I have been into this matter to see what I could do under the circumstances of the difference with the other House, and I understand that there are three courses. The first is to disagree with the Lords Amendment, and in that case I am told the Bill is lost. I am very anxious not to do anything to risk losing the Bill, as it is regarded as of such importance for the regulation of London traffic. On the other hand, I am not prepared to break faith with those to whom I made promises. So I am going to ask those who have supported me in this to further support me in a proposal that I have to make, namely, that I do the next best thing by recommending the House to adopt the substitution of 1928 for 1930, in the hope that that will be a compromise that can be effected and I can get my Bill.

Mr. MASTERMAN: Four instead of three?

Mr. GOSLING: Yes. I therefore beg to move.

Mr. P. HARRIS: I appreciate the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has met us. Many of us feel very strongly that in the interests of London traffic and London local government this should be only a temporary Measure. It is quite clear that if a Bill of this kind is passed for six years it might very well be regarded as a permanent Measure. I should have liked even a shorter term than three years. Although I should not be a bit sorry to see this Bill go altogether, I appreciate that the Minister has put in many months of work in guiding it through Parliament, and it would be a little too much to ask, in insisting on the principle that the Bill should be a temporary Measure, that, he should run the risk of losing it altogether. Under those circumstances—though for my part I am very sorry to see this extension of the term which will strengthen the position of the Department to keep the administration of the Bill in the hands of the bureaucracy instead of local government—I shall support the Minister.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Wheatley): I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
5.0 P.M.
Perhaps the House will bear with me, and it might expedite business, if I stated in a very few words the attitude which the Government intend to adopt towards these Amendments. The Amendments might be properly divided into three classes. In the first class we might put the Government Amendments which have been inserted in the Lords to meet undertakings given by the Government in this House while the Bill was passing through the Report stage. I hope that these Amendments will be satisfactory, and of course the Government will accept them. The second class of Amendments includes those which have the effect of making more emphatic provisions in the Bill, or modifying provisions in a way which does not interfere with the main features of the Bill. The policy which I adopted, the House will remember, during the Committee stage and also on the Report stage, was to meet the views of the other sections of the House as far as I could without endangering the main objects of the Bill. I propose to adopt that attitude towards the Amendments inserted by the Lords, and in so far as I do not regard them as destructive of the Measure I will advise the House to accept them. The Amendments which I do regard as destructive are a number. I take three, and I state for the others that there are certain modifications that may be proposed that will not interfere with the substance of the Amendments. The Amendments on which I propose to appeal to the House to support me in resisting them are those which deal with rents. Of course these, if carried, as I explained in the Commons—and I was supported in that by the right hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain)—would destroy one of the principles of the Bill. I would ask the House to resist the Lords Amendments in regard to rents. I would also ask the House to maintain the original provision in the Bill giving the
building industry three years in which to carry out their promises in regard to housing. I think that all sections of the House will agree that they ought to have a reasonable opportunity of fulfilling their promises, and that three years is not too long. I would also ask the House to resist the Lords Amendment proposing that the Draft Orders shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and to insist on the original provision that the Orders shall be submitted only to the House of Commons. May I, in a concluding word, appeal to the House to enable me to get through as quickly as possible, in order to meet the convenience of the other House and to enable them to deal with the Bill before this part of the Session concludes?

Sir WILLIAM JOYNSON-HICKS: I fully appreciate the action of the Minister, and we will reciprocate it very fully on this side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has told us what he intends to insist upon and what Amendments he will agree to. There are only two or three small Amendments upon which I and some of my Friends may desire to say a word, and we shall all be glad to facilitate the sending of the Bill back to the other House.

Mr. E. BROWN: I did not catch what the right hon. Gentleman said with regard to the Lords Amendment altering the numbers of houses in the building schedule.

Mr. WHEATLEY: That is a consequential Amendment.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 2.—(Increased Government con tributions in case of houses which are subject to special conditions.)

CLAUSE 3.—(Special conditions.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 5, line 5, after "tenants" insert
who are members of the working classes and.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. MASTERMAN: I should like to say one word on this Amendment, not so much to resist the Government's agreement with it, as to get some explanation from the Minister. I have had the pleasure of reading the Debate on this Amendment in the other House, and I very much commend it to hon. Members on both sides of this House, in connection with the question who are members of the working classes and who are not. One brilliant orator asserted with horror that some of the Chamberlain houses were being let to, among others, a sanitary inspector and a clerk, and, apparently, this was, to his mind, a violation of any idea that they should be let to the working classes. He does not seem to realise that clerks are not only members of the working classes, but are probably, in many respects, the worst paid of all members of the working classes. Therefore, we ought to have a definite assurance from the Minister, which I am sure he is prepared to give, that in the administration in regard to these houses the term "working classes" will not exclude what another facetious Member of the other House called "the black-coated brigade." That clerks, with their miserable salaries, should be taxed for these houses, and yet be forbidden to live in them, is, I am sure, against the intention of the whole of this House. Another Member of the other House—the Marquess of Salisbury—asserted, curiously enough, that these houses—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] Can I refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT? This is rather an important point, from the administrative point of view.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman may not reply to the Debate in the other House.

Mr. MASTERMAN: It was asserted in the other House that these houses should not be let to parsons and people of that description. I wish to protest, firstly, against any idea that parsons are not members of the working classes, and, secondly, because, as the House knows, the majority of parsons are paid less than the municipal dustman. I should like,
therefore, to have an assurance from the Minister of Health that, in accepting this Amendment of the Lords, he does not mean what the Lords mean by this Amendment, but that, in the administration of the Measure, all people who work shall be included in the working classes, and that those who need these houses shall receive them.

Sir K. WOOD: I desire to say a word on this Amendment, because the other House are not the only people who are under a misconception with regard to the meaning of the term "working classes." I very well remember, when this Bill was first introduced, that the intention of the Measure was, apparently, to give an advantage to certain members of the working classes, but it will be observed that the acceptance of this Amendment by the Government will allow these houses to be let by local authorities to members of the working classes in general. That is perfectly correct, because the original suggestion of the Government, under which they were going to allow, we will say, people belonging to the poorer community to have the advantage of these houses, has completely gone. As has now been revealed by the Minister of Health, with the rents which will inevitably have to be charged for these houses, it will be utterly impossible, for instance, for poor people who live in the slums, or even for people of what we may call the lower working classes, to pay the rents which are demanded. Therefore, the Government are perfectly right in accepting this Amendment, because undoubtedly, so far as regards allowing any of these new houses to go only to a section, and the poorer section, of the working classes, that ideal may be completely dismissed. I hope that when the Minister of Health makes the tour, which I understand he is going to make during the Vacation, for the purpose of explaining this Bill, he will explain to the people that the rents of these houses will be very little, if any, less than those which have been charged for what are called the Chamberlain houses. There is very little difference indeed. In fact, so far as London is concerned, and so far as the lower members of the working class—to use that phrase not in any critical spirit—are concerned, there will be no advantage whatever to them from this proposal.
When this matter was discussed on a previous Housing Bill, I remember very
well, Mr. Speaker, your predecessor saying that, so far as definition of the working classes was concerned, anyone was entitled to come within that definition, from the Speaker downwards or upwards, as one cared to regard it. That is not my observation; it was an observation, which I remember very well, of Mr. Speaker Lowther. It is perfectly true that there is no such definition in any of the housing Acts, in spite of the statement in the other House that there was a definition of the term "working classes." There is no definition in any of the recent Housing Acts of what working classes are, and the local authorities have full discretion in the matter. I would call the attention of hon. Members opposite to the fact that the Minister of Health has not sought to lay any imposition on the local authorities as to the class of people who should occupy these houses. I should have thought, after all the speeches that I have heard from the Minister in this House, some relevant and some irrelevant, that, at any rate, some condition would have been laid down—some income limit might have been suggested, for instance—but there is nothing of the sort. I can anticipate the speeches that may be made by some hon. Members opposite, and it is very important, in view of the fact that we are' going away very shortly, that the country should clearly understand that, with this Amendment in the Bill, the local authorities are free to let these houses to any members of the working classes to whom they desire to let them, and, secondly, that, under the financial provisions of the Bill, it will be quite impossible for the poorer members of the working classes to obtain any advantage from the right hon. Gentleman's proposals.

Mr. LEIF JONES: I only rise for the purpose of asking whether we are not to have some explanation as to why the Government are accepting this Amendment? What is the object of these words, and what meaning do the Government attach to the words "members of the working classes"? Is anyone who has ever done any work a member of the working classes? Are shopkeepers, or clergymen, or teachers, members of the working classes? Are all professional men members of the working classes? Again, are people who have worked, but who have ceased to work, members of the
working classes? I really do not know what meaning to attach to these words, and I may say that throughout my political life I have always, or almost always, avoided the use of the term, as I think that in its common usage it conveys a meaning which I do not regard as a desirable one. It is not a distinction between one man and another; it is not a class distinction. Most of the people of this country are working at something or other. Are they, therefore, all members of the working classes? I think it would be much better if the House rejected this Amendment, which I hold to be meaningless, and I hope we shall be allowed to divide—I do not see what harm it can do—on the question of rejecting the Minister's proposal to agree with the Lords in this Amendment; or, perhaps, he will withdraw the Motion if he finds the sense of the House against including these words, which I regard as conveying an invidious distinction and as having no real meaning except one of prejudice.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: The purpose of the Amendment made in another place was, I think, a commendable one. I understand that those who took part in the Debate in the other House were very much perturbed about the possibility of houses being let by local authorities as week-end cottages to people who might be described as well-to-do. That is not the intention of Members of this House, but houses of that kind have been subsidised under previous Acts, and I understand that that was the reason why in the other House these words were inserted. Our view is that they might well be accepted. I think we might rely upon the common sense and judgment of the local authorities as to who would be regarded as working-class people.

Sir K. WOOD: Would they include Members of Parliament?

Mr. MASTERMAN: May I ask one really rather serious question—

Sir K. WOOD: I protest.

Mr. MASTERMAN: —as serious a question, at least, as that of my hon. Friend? If the Law Officers of the Crown were consulted, would they say that this would prevent, say, pensioners or ex-service men, who are not working-class
people, from receiving these houses? If it would, had we not better throw out this Amendment?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I understand that no person who would be able to occupy such a house would be deprived of it as a consequence of the acceptance of the Amendment. After all, this is one of the conditions with which local authorities must comply, and it must be left to the judgment of local authorities.

Sir K. WOOD: May I ask whether Members of Parliament would be included, because I understand that various Ministers and other Members of Parliament are occupying these houses? Is that right or not?

Mr. GREENWOOD: In so far as these people now occupy working-class houses, they would still be working-class people, and I take it that a local authority would have regard to the class of people now occupying houses of the kind the rents of which are going to be taken for the purpose of computing rents of the new houses. I can assure the House there is no danger in limiting the letting of the houses by accepting this Amendment, but there would seem to be a possible danger of cottages being erected by a local authority, and let purely for weekend purposes.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should like to ask the Government if they will alter their view and disagree with the Amendment which was moved by a friend of mine in another place. If hon. Members will look at the definition of "working class" in the Consolidation Bill which has just come down to us, it is a very limited one—
Working class includes mechanics, artizans, labourers and others working for wages, hawkers, costermongers, persons not working for wages but working at some trade or handicraft without employing others except members of their families, and persons other than domestic servants whose income in any case does not exceed an average of £3 a week.
The Bill frequently uses the expression "working-class houses." It would be better if we could leave it at that, and not seek to impose upon it the particular Amendment which has been suggested here.

Mr. WHEATLEY: If the general sense of the House be against the Amendment, I have no desire to press it. I move "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): The Parliamentary Secretary has already moved that the House agree.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I ask leave to withdraw.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I understand the proper method is to vote against the Motion.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and negatived.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, down to page 5, line 18, agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In page 5, line 39, leave out "in the aggregate."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This and the next two Amendments are privileged—

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I ask if it is not possible for this House to waive its privilege in that case?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I was just giving the information.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the Minister does not move to waive privilege, will it be open to myself to move it?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I understand the ordinary course is that the Minister moves to agree or to disagree.

Mr. WHEATLEY: There are three Amendments here. The first I should accept if certain other words were inserted. May I make clear what the effect will be. We are dealing with paragraph (e) of Clause 3, and the words I propose to insert are at the beginning of the paragraph, "That the total amount of the," so that the line will read:
That the total amount of the rents charged in respect of the houses shall not exceed the total amount of the rents that will be payable if the houses were let at the appropriate normal rents.
If that were agreed to, I should accept the Lords Amendment striking out the words "in the aggregate."

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is the same.

Mr. WHEATLEY: It is practically the same, but we have some objection to the words " in the aggregate," and I think it makes it clearer if we alter it in this way.

Mr. MASTERMAN: Is this a Government Amendment?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am not quite sure what the right hon. Gentleman is moving.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I think it would be necessary that I should move the insertion of the words "the total amount of" before coming to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. MASTERMAN: On a point of Order. You, Sir, have ruled that these are privileged Amendments. Therefore, surely the first thing that is necessary is that the House should waive its privilege. If these Amendments are put in by the House of Lords on their own initiative I should be very strongly opposed to our waiving the ancient privileges of the House of Commons on any occasion whatever, and if you are going to put that I should vote against it unless it is necessary for the carrying out of some definite premise which the Minister has made to the House, in which case we should have to give way. I should like to ask the Minister whether it is necessary in order to carry out a promise, and, if not, I should resist in every possible way the waiving of the privilege of the House of Commons.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have explained that all that is necessary is to move either to agree or to disagree. If we agree there will be a special entry in the Journal of the House.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am a little in the dark as to what is happening. The Minister just now moved a new Amendment of his own to insert the words, "the total amount of." That does not appear to have been withdrawn and he has now moved to disagree with the Lords. [Interruption.] Then we must assume we are now discussing the disagreement with the Lords Amendment.

Mr. L. JONES: On a point of Order. If we are going to plead privi
lege, is it necessary for the House to disagree with the Lords Amendment. The Amendment dies the moment the House of Commons pleads privilege. If the Minister wishes to agree with the Lords Amendment he suggests that the House waive its privilege and moves to agree with the Amendment, but if he wishes to disagree with it, all he does is to plead privilege, and there is an end of the matter.

Mr. RAWLINSON: All you can do, Sir, is to advise or warn the House of the matter of privilege. It is for the House to deal with it. That is the way it is always done. The question is whether you agree or disagree.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We must dispose of every Amendment that comes from the other House. These three Amendments are privileged, and it rests with the House to agree or disagree with them. If they agree there will be a special entry by my direction in the Journal of the House.

Mr. MASTERMAN: On the Unemployment Insurance Bill last week it was merely necessary for the Speaker to declare that the Amendments were privileged, and it was left to someone to move that the privilege should be waived. That surely would meet the case here.

Mr. HOPE: Was not the case quoted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite one in which, if sufficient vigilance has been shown, it would have been possible for some Member of the House to have moved to agree with the Lords Amendment, but unhappily such vigilance was not shown, so the matter went by default, and it must not create a precedent, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. LANSBURY: I am not a constitutional lawyer, but the Noble Lord the Member for Oxford University (Lord H. Cecil) raised this question of privilege on the Unemployment Insurance Bill, and, so far as I can remember, the Speaker said all that could have been done was at the right moment to move that the House waive its privilege. That has not been done to-day, and I suggest that, these being privileged Amendments, we have nothing to do but to pass on to those which are not privileged.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I consulted Mr. Speaker before he left, and the ruling I am giving I think would meet with his approval. If I remember correctly, we were dealing on the occasion referred to with a financial question relating to the Parliament Act. In the case of a privileged Amendment it is for the Minister to move to agree or to disagree, the House having been warned.

Mr. RAWLINSON: On that occasion the Speaker distinctly put it in the form in which you, Sir, have put it to-day. It is invariably put in that form when it is a question of privilege. It is quite a different thing if it is under the Parliament Act.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I do not think we need pursue the question of Order further, though I rather resent the suggestion of lack of vigilance on the part of the Front Bench. To-day my hon. Friend is very wide awake, but I am not sure whether he was the other night. We look to him to guide us in all these matters. No one understands what the words of this Amendment mean. It was put down by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Greene), but was not selected by the Chairman. Anyone who has read the Debates in the Lords will not, I think, be any wiser for the explanation given by a certain Noble Lord of what it means. Let us ascertain from the Minister what it means. Does it mean that a municipality may build 20 houses and let some of them at 5s. a week and some at 15s., so as to make an average of 10s.? That might be possible under the Clause as it stands. We have never been able to find out what the real idea of the Minister is. No doubt he has something at the back of his mind, probably very clever, but he should at least tell us what it means. What is going to be done under the provisions of this Bill if these words are left in?

Mr. GREENE: I rise to support this Amendment. I understand that it is the intention of the Minister of Health that the local authority will be in a position to build houses of different types and in different localities within the area, and that the local authority will be entitled to charge different rents for these houses. Take an area where the appropriate normal rent is, say, 8s. The local authority will then be able to build three
types of houses and rent them at, say, 10s., 8s. and 6s., providing that the rents of all these houses when added together and divided by the number of houses works out at 8s. I take that to be the intention of this Sub-section. In that event, I hold that these words "in the aggregate'' and the following words will hamper the Act very much in its working. They would bring building to an absolute standstill in certain circumstances. Supposing there was an area with a fairly well-to-do working-class population, and the people wanted houses of the 10s. type. When the demand for the cheaper type of dwelling has been satisfied it would be impossible to build houses to be charged for at a higher rent. That is obvious. You would have people going to the local authority and asking for a 10s. house, and the local authority would be willing and able to build and let that type of house but they would have to say to the prospective tenants, "We would like to build for you and to rent to you the house you require, but the law will not allow us. The only remedy is to import another poor family into this area to ask for a 6s. house, or you must take a house not as good as you want in a locality where you do not wish to reside."
For these reasons the words "in the aggregate" ought to be left out, in order that each type a house may be charged at a rent comparable to that charged for a similar house built during or before 1914. It is not laid down, as far as I can see, that this interpretation, which I believe to be the interpretation of the Ministry, is to be the one adopted by the local authority. It might well be that the local authority would charge people better off a higher rent than their poorer neighbours. They might be able to say to a family earning, say, £8 a week, You can afford to pay an economic rent and the economic rent for this house is £1." The family would have to take that house at £1 a week, which would automatically enable the local authority to let three other similar houses at 4s. a week, making the rents "in the aggregate'' 32s. a week for the four houses, or four times 8s. For these reasons, I support the Amendment.

Mr. WHEATLEY: On a point of Order. We are discussing an Amendment which you, Mr. Speaker, have declared to be one of privilege. I submit that we ought
not to consider the merits of an Amendment in the usual way where an announcement has been made from the Chair that the Amendment is privileged, until we have decided that we wish to waive the question of privilege.

Mr. SPEAKER: When the House is informed by the Chair that an Amendment is a privileged Amendment, it does not, ipso facto, prevent debate. If the Minister move to disagree with the Lords, and privilege is assigned as the reason, that is the reason that will be sent to the Lords for disagreeing. But the fact of privilege being declared does not prevent the House from discussing the matter, and even deciding in a contrary sense. If the House decide in a contrary sense it, therefore, waives privilege.

Lords Amendment:

In page 5, lines 39 and 40, leave out "total amount of the."

Mr. SPEAKER: This is a privilege Amendment.

Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Wheatley.]

Lords Amendment:

In page 5, line 43, after the word "houses," insert
of similar size, type and amenity.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment"—[Mr. Wheatley.]

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Whether this be a question of privilege or not, I want the Minister of Health to explain what "privilege" means in this respect. We are entitled to some reason from him as to why he disagrees with this Amendment, which seems to me to be a reasonable Amendment. The paragraph says that
The rents charged.… shall not in the aggregate exceed the total amount of the tents that will be payable if the houses were let at the appropriate normal rents charged in respect of working-class houses.''
The Lords have inserted as an Amendment that the houses referred to are to be houses "of similar size, type and
amenity." Are there to be rents charged in respect of working-class houses of the two-roomed type in a slum, or working-class houses of the Addison type or working-class houses of the non-parlour Chamberlain type or the parlour house of the Chamberlain type? I think the Lords are right in this Amendment. There must be something with which you can compare these houses. The rents are to be the same as those charged in respect of working-class houses, according to this paragraph, but we know that there are various gradations of size and condition in working-class houses. If the rents are to be appropriate to those charged for similar working-class houses, then I could understand it. This Amendment would make it applicable to houses similar in size and similar in type. That would be something to go on, and something which would give a comparison.

Mr. MASTERMAN: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman, who does not seem to have been so diligent in attendance in Committee as we would have liked, that this Amendment is merely the re-insertion of an Amendment which was rejected by a very large majority and after a very long discussion, in which the case from both sides was put. It is now re-inserted by the Lords, and the reinsertion of it is a violation of the ancient privileges of the House of Commons. I do not think it is any use arguing the merits under the circumstances. The House of Commons has made up its mind on the matter. The Debate in the House of Lords resulted in 40 out of 700 Members of the House of Lords voting down the deliberate derision of this Chamber. Under these circumstances, I would appeal to hon. Members, even though they may have supported this Amendment on the previous occasion, to support the Government in rejecting this encroachment on our privileges.

Mr. E. SIMON: As my right hon Friend has accused the right hon. Gentleman of not being diligent in attendance when this matter was debated in Committee, may I say that if my right hon. Friend himself had listened a little more carefully when this matter was discussed for two hours he would have known that at the end of the discussion the Minister of Health, in Committee, was good enough to promise that he would consider what he would do on Report stage to meet
the views of those hon. Members who supported the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman did nothing whatever on the Report stage, and now, thanks to the action of another place, we have an opportunity of considering the matter again and of knowing that the Minister of Health is not going to do anything to meet the views of those who supported the Amendment. I abstained from voting on the matter, simply on account of the promise of the Minister of Health, and hoping that he would do something to meet us on the Report stage. As he did nothing whatever to meet us, my views on the matter are entirely unchanged. I have had an opportunity of consulting a large number of housing experts and financial experts, and they all agree with the views I stated as to the unsoundness of this Clause. I sincerely hope that the House will insist on agreeing with the Lords in their Amendment.
The proposal of the Bill, as it stands, is that certain privileged tenants shall be selected for these houses, not the poorest people, because there is not the least chance of any of the poorer section of the working classes getting one of these houses in the urban districts. The rent in Manchester will be about 13s. 6d., even with the full subsidy. The people who will get the houses will be artisans, clerks, and other members of the working classes of whom we have heard—the upper section of the working classes. The proposal is to give a dole of 1s. 6d. a week to this upper section of the working classes, and in return for that the taxpayer is to be asked to pay an additional burden of £11,000,000 a year. There is no pretence that we are going to get one single extra house through this extra dole. The building trade never asked for it, the trade unions never asked for it, and the employers in the building trade have explicitly repudiated it and have said that this extra dole will demoralise the building trade. There is no chance of getting an extra bricklayer or an extra house through this dole, while as regards the poorer section of the people who live in the slums, they cannot get into these houses, although they will have to pay their share towards giving this dole to those who are a great deal better off than themselves. That is why I regard this as one of the most vicious forms of dole that has ever been suggested in a Bill before
this House. I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to do anything of the kind, and I trust that he will realise that it will work out in the way I have stated. I hope we shall agree with the Lords in their Amendment in this case.

Sir K. WOOD: This is perhaps the most vital Amendment that the Lords have sent to us. It goes to the very root of the Bill, and I do not think we shall be acting improperly in saying something about it. I fully agree with what the hon. Member has just said. The Minister of Health will remember that when this Amendment was moved in Committee the right hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) stated that if it was carried it would destroy the Bill. It would undoubtedly do so. The whole conception of the Minister of Health is that in this Bill, somehow or other, he is going to set up a different class of tenant, paying a different rent and, presumably, occupying practically the same kind of house as his neighbour may be occupying. It places the local authorities who will have to administer the Act almost in an impossible position. When the Minister of Health gave his definition of the principles of the Bill he admitted that the Bill permitted local authorities to charge different rents for the same class of house in different localities within the same area.
It is true that Amendment, if carried, would destroy the Bill. I think that the course of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken would have been to vote against this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has now got to this stage that within a few hours, if this Amendment is not carried, he will get his Bill. So far as I am concerned I am not going to put any obstacle in the way of his getting his Bill. We have stated our objections. Let the right hon. Gentleman proceed. This Bill will have to be tested like every other Bill by the number of houses he will get. I hope that he is content to accept that test. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) said the other day that if this House had been allowed a free vote it would have rejected this Bill. There is no doubt about that. If this Amendment were carried it would be another way of defeating the Bill. I prefer at this stage, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ladywood
(Mr. N. Chamberlain) stated in the Committee stage, to defeat this Bill in a straightforward fashion. The right hon. Gentleman has got his Bill to a certain stage. I think that he had better get on with it and get the houses if he can. For that reason I think that we had better disagree with the Amendment of the House of Lords and let the right hon. Gentleman proceed with his scheme.

Mr. E. BROWN: I differ regretfully from what my hon. Friend the Member for Withington (Mr. Simon) has said from his experience in Manchester, but the privileged tenant is not a national case. In the rural districts if houses are built under this Bill the tenants will be the tenants occupying the present houses who are paying rents of 2s. or 2s. 6d. a week. The rents under this Bill will be 5s. or 6s. and the privilege is the other way. The only possible chance, if one objected to the principle of the Bill, was to reject the Bill, and we came to the conclusion on balance that the right thing to do was to give the Minister his chance.

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: I would suggest that the case might be met by using the words "similar cost" instead of "similar size, type and amenity." It seems to me that the whole reason for this Bill as drawn by the Minister has been the greatly increased cost of building, and, if the cost of building can be reduced materially to pre-War level, there would be no necessity then to subsidise the other section of the community which, as the whole of the Debates in this House show, is almost an impossibility so far as equality of conditions is concerned. The Minister himself knows that it would be extraordinarily difficult to benefit those classes which he wishes most to benefit, and it appears to me that if the words "similar cost" were substituted for "similar size, type and amenity," it would mean that when the cost of living had come down the conditions which the Lords wish to embody in their Amendment would be obtained, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is considerable hope of reducing the cost of building in the near future to something like the pre-War level.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I would appeal to the House to let me get this Bill through now, because I want to get it to the
House of Lords this evening. Otherwise I would not make such an appeal, I do not know that I need go carefully into the arguments which have been dealt with before. I have been asked what would be the comparison. The comparison would be with the rents which are now being paid by the working classes. In some districts where you have a comfortable section of the working classes located, and where the houses are good and the rents high, they would get very little relief from this Bill. In such a locality the method of fixing the rent would be very near what it would be if the Amendment of the House of Lords were accepted, but where you have the poorer section of the workers located and the houses are worse and the rents are low, then, until you have provided decent houses for these people at the lower rents, that method could not be adopted. The whole policy of the Bill is to give least help to those who need it least and most help to those who need it most.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I do not think, even after all the discussion to which the right hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) has referred, that the House really understands what this Bill means. The Minister of Health says that this would wreck his Bill, but the words which he himself has put in in Sub-section (3) of Clause 3 are
provided that different rents may be so determined to be the appropriate normal rents as respects different classes of houses.
What is a different class of house unless it is a house of a different size or type? They are the same thing. What I am not sure about is that we are not facing this matter with mystification, that the Minister of Health does not like to say that he is going to take pre-War rents plus 40 per cent. and the Addison and Chamberlain houses as the standard for all the houses which he is going to build under this Bill, but, in effect, he is doing it by the words of his Bill, only he does not want to say it so clearly as the House of Lords want to say it in the Amendment, and as the hon. Member for Withington wants to say it. I am not at all sure that we are not being mystified by the right hon. Gentleman, and I have come by a slightly different route to the same conclusion as the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood). This is the most important point to put to the
House. I have come to the same conclusion that the whole of the machinery for fixing rents, by which the Minister may lay down rules by which the local authority are to fix the initial rent for the houses, is really useless for the purpose of determining those rents.
It would be all right if the Bill were going to be unsuccessful. If the Bill were only going to succeed in building a certain number of houses, say, the number built under the Addison Act, every local authority would have a situation somewhat similar to that under the Addison Act and they would fix high rents, but the object of the Bill is to add 25 per cent. to the houses of this country. Even if the Bill is only to be partially successful—I do not think it is going to be successful at all—I am convinced that you cannot add as much as 10 per cent. to the houses of this country, in the first eight years of this Bill, without bringing a slump in the rents of the most of them, and whatever rent the local authorities are going to fix to-day they will have to reduce the rents as they have had to do already in the case of the Addison houses. Local authorities may fix these rents high or low now, but the rents will have to be reduced in the future if the Bill is successful, and if the Bill is successful it means that the local authorities will have to bear a burden on the rates for every house built, far in excess of the £4 10s. per house. If the Bill is successful it is going to mean a general reduction in the rents, and it is going to bankrupt the local authorities. For that reason any consideration of this Amendment is useless, and I think that we had better let the thing go.

Mr. COMYNS-CARR: If it be true, as the hon. Member has alleged, that this Amendment destroys the principle of the Bill, it can only be on the ground of its unintelligibility, because I defy anybody to extract from the words of the Bill or from the explanations which the Minister has given us this afternoon any other tangible meaning of any kind, and it seems to me that if these words are, as the hon. Member for West Woolwich says, going to knock the bottom out of the Bill it can only be because there is no bottom to knock. The words as they stand appear to me to have no definite meaning. We are told that the rent charged shall not in the aggregate exceed the total
amount of the rents that would be payable. I understand that that means that you are to lump together all the rents which would be payable for all the houses that you were going to build, and then you are to compare them with the total of the rents charged which may vary as much as you like among themselves.
But then what you are comparing is the rent that would be payable if the houses were let at the appropriate normal rents charged in respect of working-class houses, and the appropriate normal rents charged in respect of working-class houses are things which vary in every district to an extent, especially when you have no definition of what the working classes are, and no definition of a class which includes every possible variety of person earning every possible variety of salary and paying every possible variety of rent for their houses. It means that there is no possible means by which you can rely on any particular meaning for the words.
paying the appropriate normal rents charged in respect of working-class houses.
You are in exactly the same difficulty in respect of the definition in Sub-section (3) of the same Section. It simply means nothing, and if it is suggested as I understand the Minister has suggested, that you are only going to get a very much lower rent for the houses than you otherwise would, on the ground that you were going to compare it with the rents of houses of a different type and of an inferior character, then the only result would be that immediately you are going to exceed the £4 10s. subsidy, which the local authority has got to give in addition to the £9 or £12 subsidy which the State is going to give, and immediately there fore you are going to get to a position in which you are not going to be able to let these houses at a rent comparable with that of the normal working-class house which may be defined as being a house of very inferior character, occupied by a person paying a very inferior rent. You are in this dilemma, that you have got to give quite a different interpretation to this Clause, namely, the interpretation put in the Amendment of the House of Lords. You cannot let it at the rent you are talking about without immediately exceeding the £4 10s. subsidy. In my opinion the Bill as it stands with this Clause means nothing at all, and a meaning can only be given to it by the adoption of this Amendment.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. P. HARRIS: I cannot help thinking that sometimes even legal minds stray. I have had some seventeen years' experience on a housing committee. We have had to consider these problems almost every day. The practice is year by year to consider the aggregate rates, and on the basis of those rates to charge rents for the new houses erected. That is the only way in which you can get tenants for the new houses. They are not going to pay exorbitantly high rents for new or subsidised houses; their wages will not allow them to do so. What the Minister is proposing is the only way for meeting this particular question.

Lord E. PERCY: Does my hon. Friend understand that the Minister's proposals under this Bill are exactly what the London County Council committee desire? The Minister's case is that this is something new, and that it does not represent the London County Council's policy.

Mr. P. HARRIS: The housing committee of the London County Council, dominated by the Conservative party, accepted these proposals, and have not asked us to move any Amendments. The question has been considered in great detail by their officials, and the Chairman of the Advisory Committee representing the local authorities was the Conservative chairman of the housing committee of the London County Council. Hon. Members are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Lords Amendment:

In page 6, line 8, at the end, insert "that no fine, premium, or other like sum shall be taken in addition to the rent; and."

Agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In page 6, line 24, after "tenants," insert "who are members of the working classes and."

Disagreed with.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, down to page 6, line 37, agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In page 6, line 41, after "such," insert "reasonable."

Mr. WHEATLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Lord E. PERCY: The Attorney-General, on the Report stage, gave an assurance that the Government would reconsider carefully these special Clauses with reference to the question whether they would prevent public utility societies from acting as they have acted hitherto, i.e., allowing their houses to be gradually bought by tenants. I want an assurance that the Government are advised that this paragraph as it will stand after the word "reasonable" is inserted and other Amendments are made in this part of the Bill, will not prevent public utility societies operating in that way.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: It will not interfere with the public utility societies.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, down to page 7, line 38, agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Termination of Government liability to make contributions.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 8, line 21, leave out "seven" and insert "six."

Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment and the next three amendments raise questions of privilege. I understand that the Government want to move Amendments.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Not here, but subsequently. This is the Clause dealing with the time within which the building industry has satisfied the House that it is delivering the goods. The next Clause deals with the period at which a review of the subsidies to be paid to the local authorities is to be made. On that I propose to move an Amendment.

Motion made, and Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment." put, and agreed to.—[Mr. Wheatley.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments down to page 8, line 27, disagreed with.

Lords Amendment:

In page 9, line 5, after "engaged," insert "whether as employers or workers."

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Revision of contributions.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 9, line 17, leave out "seven," and insert "six"

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: This Amendment and following Amendments are Amendments to the Clause dealing with the revision of contributions payable to local authorities. We desire to accept the principle of these Amendments. As the Bill left the Commons, it was proposed that contributions should be revised triennially. In another place Amendments were inserted to reduce the period between revisions to two years. There is no substantial objection to that, provided that the two years cover two complete building seasons. Our proposals, therefore, are to accept the principle of this and the three following Amendments, but to amend each of them.

Mr. SPEAKER: It will be necessary to amend the Lords Amendment and then to agree to it as amended. These are technically matters of privilege.

Amendment made to Lords Amendment: After the word "six" insert "after the first day of October in that year."

Lords Amendment:

In page 9, line 18, leave out "third'' and insert "second."

Amendments made to Lords Amendment:

In page 9, line 18, leave out "in any third succeeding year" and insert instead thereof "in each second succeeding year after the first day of October in such year."

Lords Amendment:

In page 9, line 21, leave out ''three" and insert "two."

Amendment made to Lords Amendment:

In page 9, lines 20 and 21, leave out "next succeeding three years" and insert instead thereof "period of two years from such first day of October."

Lords Amendment:

In page 9, line 25, leave out "three" and insert. "two."

Amendment made to Lords Amendment: In page 9, lines 24 and 25, leave out "preceding three years" and insert instead thereof "period of two years ending on that day."

Further Amendments made: In page 9, lines 33, 34 and 35, leave out "first day of October in the year in which the order is made or before any subsequent."

In page 9, line 36, leave out "as the case may be."—[Mr. A. Greenwood.]

CLAUSE 6.—(Laying of orders before Parliament.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 10, lines 11 and 12, leave out "the Commons House" and insert "both Houses."

Mr. SPEAKER: This is a privileged Amendment. The matter of money is a privilege of this House.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Lords Amendment:

In line 13, leave out "that" and insert "each."

Disagreed with.

CLAUSE 10—(Materials and methods of construction.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 11, line 16, after "Minister" insert
shall require the adoption of the said new material or method of construction to be reconsidered for that purpose by the local authority and in the event of their failure without reasonable cause to adopt the same.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment—[Mr. Wheatley]

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: With regard to the words "without reasonable cause to adopt the same," supposing the Minister has approved a new method of construction, but the local authority is
debarred from using it, because it infringes a local bye-law, will that be regarded as a "reasonable cause" for rejecting such a method of construction? This is an important point, because there should be one central authority to settle questions of construction and material, and at the present time there are something like 1,000 different authorities in the country. It is of importance that any person, or company, wishing to manufacture on a large scale should be able to obtain a definite ruling as to whether a particular type of material, or method of construction, will be approved in all parts of the country. If the interpretation placed on the word "reasonable" be such that the existence of some old and out-of date bye-law will not be regarded as a reasonable objection, then I think there is no objection to the Amendment. But if a local authority can object simply because there is some such local bye-law in existence, then there should be some Amendment to this proposal. I raise the point in order to get an expression of opinion from the Minister.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I have just sent a message to my legal advisers to obtain the information asked for by the hon. and gallant Member, and I am advised that it is a matter of legal interpretation—which does not carry us much further. My own advice to the House is that in actual administration there would be no difficulty, and that, where the Ministry of Health were satisfied that a certain material was suitable for the erection of houses, no bye-law or local authority would stand in the way.

Mr. VIVIAN: Is it not the case that power rests with the central authority to act in these matters and that in regard to any objection concerning material, the central authority would have power to alter or remove any bye-law which proved an obstruction?

Lord E. PERCY: For the information of the House, I must point out that while, in administrative practice, the Minister has power to overrule a local authority in a particular case, he has no power at all in practice to say to a local authority, "You must in the future in every ease allow such and such a method of construction or such and such a type of material." Consequently the real administrative difficulty is that where power might be exercised in the case of one
particular builder, every builder who wanted to erect houses would have to make a new application to the local authority and the administrative machinery is a great deal more cumbrous than the House realises.

Lords Amendment:

In page 11, line 17, leave out "may" and insert "shall."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Wheatley.]

Mr. SPEAKER: Technically, this is a matter of privilege, and it is my duty to call attention to that fact.

Subsequent Lords Amendments down to page 12, line 32, agreed to.

First Schedule.

Lords Amendment:

In page 15, leave out from the beginning of line 4 to the end of line 7 and insert:


"1925
90,000


1927
110,000


1929
135,000


1931
170,000


1933
210,000


1935
225,000


1937
225,000"

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Wheatley.]

Mr. SPEAKER: This is also a matter of privilege.

Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill.
Committee nominated of Mr. Paling, Mr. Egan, Mr. Ernest Simon, Lord Eustace Percy, and Sir Kingsley Wood.

Three to be the quorum.

To withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Warne.]

Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords Amendments reported later, and agreed to.

To be communicated to the Lords.—[Mr. Warne.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL WAGES BILL.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith."
The House will permit me to make some preliminary observations before we take the Amendments one by one. The number of Amendments which have been made in another place is not very large, but I regret to say that some of them seem to travel a considerable distance from the principle of the agreement which was arrived at as representing the general consensus of opinion in the House. In considering the Amendments from another place we have acted upon the very strong desire that exists for harmonious working, but there are just a few of them which we find it impossible to accept. Two or three are upon matters of principle, and one affects the power of the central authority to ask for reconsideration of a wage fixed by a local authority. Another not so important deals with the notice that an officer of the Ministry should, in the opinion of their Lordships, give before a visit to a farm, and there is another which endeavours to include slow workers in the workers for whom general rates are to be laid down. There are two or three upon matters not of principle but of administrative feasibility, as, for instance, the proposal that a limit of age should be fixed for the workers for whom rates may be laid down. That is not really feasible and neither is it feasible that local committees should be responsible for the selection of the secretaries or other officers, for reasons which I may amplify later on, but in the main because in many cases there are groupings of counties in two's and complications would arise. I feel sure that on vital points, whether of principle or feasibility the House will view the matter in this light—that a general agreement was come to between all parties in the House and that it ought not to be lightly regarded or set aside in another place.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Establishment of agricul tural wages committees and an Agricultural Wages Board.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 1, line 20, after "county" insert. "should Resolutions in favour of such combination be passed by the representative members of the committees for the several counties."

Agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In page 1, line 21, leave out from "counties" to end of Clause 1, and insert
(4) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Section the Minister shall, on the first establishment of agricultural wages committees, establish one committee for each combination of counties specified in the Second Schedule to this Act.
(5) Where one committee has been established for a combination of counties, the Minister at any time thereafter may, and on the representation of the committee by resolution of the representative members shall, dissolve the committee, and until such committee is dissolved the counties included in the combination shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be one county.

Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This proposal was moved by the Government, its object being one which we quite accept and which was suggested from the other side. It is that the representative members should be responsible for any proposal either to combine two counties or to separate two counties which have previously been united for these purposes.

Mr. FOOT: As there has been only a short time in which to go through these Amendments which have only been printed within the last hour or two, will the right hon. Gentleman explain exactly what difference is made by the Lords Amendment in this respect. Do I understand that a number of counties are now to be joined and that an option is given to the representative members to come out of any such combination and to establish separate committees if they so desire? What is the difference between the Bill as it left this House and the Bill as it is now submitted to us in relation to the combination of counties.

Mr. BUXTON: I should explain that in a number of cases counties are united in couples and after a certain time it is intended that the representative members should have the power to bring about a dissolution of such union or combination.

Mr. EDWARD WOOD: Am I right in thinking that what the right hon. Gentleman means is, that as the Bill left this House, if a county desired to untie itself, so to speak, it required a resolution of the committee which included the appointed members? Under the Lords Amendment, as I understand it, that resolution would have to be a resolution by the representative members only, and that, I think, is a vital difference. If I am right in thinking that, it seems to me important to leave the decision as to whether two counties are or are not to be united in the hands of the local people.

CLAUSE 2.—(Duties and powers of agri cultural wages committees with respect to minimum rates of wages.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 3, line 7, at the end insert:
if an application for a permit is not disposed of within twenty-one days after the day on which it is received, then the employer of the worker to whom the application relates shall not be liable to any legal proceedings under this Act for paying wages to the worker at a rate less than the minimum rate during the interval between the expiration of the said period and the date on which the application is ultimately disposed of.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. R. SMITH): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the, said Amendment."
These words are inserted for the purpose of giving some protection against delay in regard to permits.

Mr. FOOT: Suppose a sub-committee has to deal with a workman who is not entitled to his full wage, and that sub-committee is extraordinarily slack in meeting, will the hon. Gentleman tell us what pressure can be brought to bear to hasten its decision, and whether there may not be a danger that a workman will suffer?

Mr. DUKES: So far as I have been able to read this Bill, there is no provision whereby a sub-committee is compelled to meet at certain fixed periods. There is no period established, and all that will occur under the Lords Amendment is that when 21 days have elapsed it automatically gives to the farmer the privilege of employing a man below the fixed minimum rate. I think it is a dangerous principle to accept.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: One must be guided by the experience under the previous legislation, and there was not then any great tendency to delay. So far as I am concerned, I think it will work very well.

CLAUSE 6.—(Power of the Minister to direct the re-consideration of mini mum rates.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 5, leave out Clause 6.

Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. E. WOOD: The right hon. Gentleman said, quite truly, that Clause 6 was a more vital Amendment than those that we have just discussed, and I rise only for the sake of making the position of myself and my friends as clear as I can in regard to it. The general agreement at which we arrived was one that included this Clause 6, and, therefore from our point of view, if the right hon. Gentleman attaches importance to the Clause, I certainly shall not feel at liberty to support the Amendment made in another place to leave it out. At the same time, I will take the liberty to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the view of this Clause held by the spokesman of the Government in another place, and I cannot help thinking it is a little bit unfortunate that the spokesman of the Government should speak with a different voice in another place. There, Lord Parmoor said he had heard this Clause described by Lord Banbury as the most important Clause in this Bill, and he said:
In my view, it is an unimportant Clause, and I am not prepared to press it if the House takes the view that it should be deleted.
As the result of that, I think, only two speeches were made on it altogether, one by the mover of the rejection of the Clause, and a very short one by Lord Parmoor, after which the Clause was deleted. As a result of that deletion, I notice that at a later stage in the Debate in another place another noble Lord, I think Lord Strachie, who had had a further Amendment on the Paper, said he should not move it in view of the exceedingly generous way in which the Government had met Lord Banbury upon this question of Clause 6. Now we are invited to disagree with the Lords Amendment. We shall, therefore, send back the Bill with that Clause in, and it will, I am afraid, create an inevitable sense of injustice and irritation in another place, owing to the apparently unauthorised statement made there by the spokesman of the Government. That, however, is a matter that the Government will have to settle for themselves. As I said earlier, if the right hon. Gentleman really attaches importance to it, I cannot divide against him in view of the arrangement that we made, but I would ask him, if his mind is not closed, whether, in view of what was said in another place, he will not reconsider the question.

Mr. BUXTON: I should not like the House to think that we regarded this Clause as unimportant. There may have been some misunderstanding as to the views held when the matter was discussed in another place, but we do regard this as a most essential part of the agreement come to, and, on the merits of the thing, we think it of very high value that there should be a formal, constitutional method of raising the point. I think my right hon. Friend will agree that it would be of great value in the case of some glaring anomaly which might easily occur as between two counties. It is true that the central authority will have no power to compel a rate, as was stated by a Noble Lord, formerly well known in this House, in another place. There is no such power of dictation given, I agree, but, while valuable, that this is not a dangerous proposal from the more conservative point of view is proved by the fact that the National Farmers' Union is not at all
opposed to the insertion in the Bill of this proposal. I am afraid we cannot think of departing from it, and I hope it will be realised in another place that we should regard with great regret its exclusion from the Bill.

Mr. FOOT: I can only express the hope that there may be some closer co-operation between the representatives of the Government here and the representatives of the Government when the Bill is further considered in another place. The right hon. Gentleman called attention to the remarks of Lord Parmoor in another place, but he will see from the OFFICIAL REPORT there that before he said this was an unimportant Clause, he stated specifically that he did not care to press the Clause, and he said: "We do not attach any great weight to the Clause." I do not know what position the Government will be in in another place if they insist upon a Clause which their spokesman there said was unimportant, and one to which they attached no great weight. I am glad the right hon. Gentleman is insisting on Clause 6, in spite of the disparity between the words used hero and those used in another place. I think it is very important that, not only if there is an anomaly, but if there is a difference between one county and another, the Minister should have the power to ask for a reconsideration. It does not go as far as we should like, but it is a valuable power, which, I think, the Minister will perhaps have occasion to exercise.

CLAUSE 8.—(Regulations.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 8, line 40, leave out Sub-section (2), and insert instead thereof a new Sub-section:
(2) Any Regulation made under this Act shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith; and if an Address to His Majesty is agreed to by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such Regulation is laid before it praying that the Regulation may be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or the making of a new Regulation.

Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. FOOT: May we understand what is the difference?

Mr. BUXTON: This Amendment would give to the. House of Lords an equal right with this House to object to any Regulation laid before Parliament. It may appear that some material change is involved in this, but, as a matter of fact, I am told that there is no case where the House of Lords has objected to a Regulation, and we, therefore, regard the Amendment as of no importance.

Mr. E. WOOD: Does Lord Parmoor agree?

CLAUSE 9.—(Appointment and powers of officers.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 9, line 7, after "and," insert "after consultation with the agricultural wages committee concerned."

Mr. W. R. SMITH: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I want to draw attention to the fact that this deals with the appointment of secretaries of the respective wages committees, and it is suggested that consultation should take place with those committees before the secretaries are appointed. This would mean, perhaps, considerable delay, and I am sure the House would not wish the operation of this Act to be delayed coming into full effect. The reason of the delay would be because a committee obviously could not meet without a secretary being present, and, therefore, it is important that he should be appointed as soon as possible. Again, I do not think this would lead to efficiency. I think the selection of secretaries is a most important point and that persons should be selected for this work who have the necessary and proper qualifications, and that can only be done, I suggest, by the Ministry. There is the further point that it would be introducing a new principle in the sense that the Ministry, which has the paying of the officials, would not have complete control over their appointment.

Mr. MILLS: I want to ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary can reassure the House as to the methods by which these officials and secretaries are to be appointed. Will there be public advertisements?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise on consideration of the Lords Amendment.

Lords Amendment:

In page 9, line 9, after the word "number," insert the words "and after such consultation as aforesaid.''

Mr. SMITH: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It is consequential upon the previous one.

Lords Amendment:

In page 9, line 13, after the word "power," insert the words "on giving reasonable and proper notice."

Mr. SMITH: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
At the same time, I wish to move a further Amendment with a view to meeting the condition somewhat. If notice has to be given in regard to all the paragraphs of this Sub-section, it will be putting the agricultural worker in that respect on an entirely different basis from that of the workers in any other industry to which similar legislation applies, and I think the House will recognise that prompt investigation very often is the very essence of the case if the facts are to be ascertained, but attention has been drawn to a point in connection with this matter, namely, that so far as the books are concerned, there is a slight difference between agriculture and most other industries. They are kept at the farmer's house, in so far as they are kept at all, and perhaps it is not unreasonable to suggest that notice should be given there to inspect them. Therefore, in disagreeing with the Lords Amendment, I wish to move to substitute in its place an Amendment to insert the words, "after giving reasonable notice," at the beginning of paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2). That would mean that it would apply only to paragraph, (a), the inspection of the books.

Mr. WOOD: There is certainly force in what the hon. Gentleman argues, but I think he might very well have gone a little further than he has in his attempt to meet the suggestion. I would like to ask him whether he could not apply the giving of reasonable notice not only to (a), but also to (b). I think he is quite right about (c), but I certainly think he ought to extend it to (b). It is not asking a great deal that, before an officer of this body goes to make an inspection on a farm, he should at least tell the farmer he is coming. I suggest it would improve the smooth-working, and avoid a certain amount of unnecessary friction that, otherwise, a tactless officer might create, if it were understood that before he paid a visit to a farm he should give reasonable notice that he was going.

Mr. VIVIAN: Will the hon. Gentleman say what the word "premises" means? Does that include the dwelling-house of a farmer?

Mr. SMITH: I can only suggest that the term "premises" means any part of the premises necessary for the purpose for which the visit is made.

Mr. VIVIAN: Does it include the dwelling-house?

Mr. SMITH: Yes.

Mr. VIVIAN: Might he go there without notice?

Mr. SMITH: He could call at the house. I think the point is covered by giving reasonable notice as to the examination of books.

Mr. VIVIAN: Will the hon. Gentleman answer me plainly as to whether this is going to give the right of entry, without notice, to a private dwelling-house?

Mr. SMITH: Strictly speaking, I suppose, it would be held to mean that, but I think, at the same time, we have to have some regard to the fact that any officer appointed for this purpose would act in a reasonable manner. We have inserted in paragraph (b) the words "to enter at all reasonable times," and I venture to suggest that the term "premises" for this purpose would very largely mean the farm premises. If it were necessary to visit the house, due courtesy would be used by the officer, and I think, having
put in the words "at all reasonable times," this is sufficient for the purpose my hon. Friend has in view.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out that this matter is not open to discussion. These words are in the Bill as it left this House.

Mr. L. JONES: On a point of Order. It is only in the Bill subject to the Amendment which the Lords have inserted requiring reasonable notice in the case of (a), (b) and (c). The Minister is now taking that out, and only applying it to (a). From the point of view of the interests of the farmer, and so forth, I think it is even more important in paragraph (b) than in paragraph (a).

Mr. SPEAKER: Paragraph (b), which has been agreed to by both Houses, gives power
to enter at all reasonable times any premises or place.

Mr. WOOD: With great respect, is it not the case that paragraph (b) only stands as returned from another place, subject to the words which another place inserted in the early part of the Sub-section governing alike (a), (b) and (c)?

Mr. DUKES: The object of entry is to inspect books. Paragraph (a) gives power to inspect and take copies of wages sheets. It is obvious that the point of entry would be where they are kept, and it appears that the question raised by the hon. Gentleman would never be likely to arise.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the right hon. Member is right. The words introduced by the Lords would govern both paragraphs.

Mr. FOOT: I appreciate the argument of the hon. Gentleman that there may be difficulties on rare occasions, and that you may have in one case or another a farmer who is contumacious and not desirous of working the Act. But what purpose can be achieved by suddenly darting upon a farmer's premises without giving notice? It is not as if the farmer can alter the conditions of the farm or of his workmen or their wages if notice is given him, and I think that if it is necessary to get this Measure worked with good-will, reasonable notice might be asked for. I think we shall be with the hon. Gentleman if he can give us any assurance that this is necessary to protect the workers'
interests. I cannot conceive any circumstances where the workers' interests would be protected simply because you gave the inspector power of going down immediately. The farmer is entitled to some reasonable notice before his farm is visited, and while I know that something may be said about other industries, I hope there will be some regard paid to what is a real difference between the agricultural industry and the industries in the towns, which for a long time have been used to legislation of this description. If we can be satisfied that the elimination of the words suggested by the Lords is necessary for the protection of the workers' interests, we are prepared to support the Minister, but I think it is well, if you can, to get the goodwill of the farmers, and I know they have raised very strong objection to the power being given to any inspector to come down with a form with the King's Arms upon it, enabling the officer to enter any part of the farm, or even the private dwelling-house. If the workers' interests are affected in this matter, I shall be prepared to support the Minister, but I would like to be assured on that point.

Mr. SMITH: I quite agree with the hon. Member as to the necessity and desirability of having as much good will in this matter as it is possible to get. In that respect, I would like to point out that these words were in the last Act, and, in face of that experience, the Bill as it left this House was an agreed Bill, not only as far as the Members of the House were concerned, but, I think I am also entitled to say, that those who represent the farmers in these matters did not raise any objection. Having had experience extending over a period of years, and those who are capable of looking after the interests of the farmers, so far as they are organised, not having raised any objection, it is a sufficient assurance that there is not a hardship in this matter, and that nothing is likely to occur in its application to which farmers could reasonably take exception. With regard to the question whether anything is to be gained by it, I can assure my hon. Friend that those who have had experience in these matters do know that if time be given there is always the possibility of intimidation. I am not making that as a general charge against farmers as a whole. These provisions have not been put into this
Bill because of any difficulty with farmers as a whole. It is difficulty that arises with a few farmers, and that particular type of farmer, just as he will seek to evade his obligations in one respect, will also seek to cover up his evasions in another, if given an opportunity. Promptness, therefore, in investigation is really essential from the workers' point of view. I hope on those points I have satisfied my hon. Friend that it is essential in the interests of the workers, and as no point has been raised on the other side, it may be taken that there is nothing unreasonable in the proposal in the Bill.

Captain BOWYER: I think this point is a little more important. The hon. Member seemed to infer that as the words are proposed to be inserted in paragraph (a), it is not necessary to insert them in paragraph (b). That is not so. Paragraph (b) says
to enter at all reasonable times any premises or place for the purpose of such inspection"—
If it ended there, it would be quite correct, but it goes on
or for the enforcement of this Act; and.
Those are very wide terms.

Mr. DUKES: Is not this a paragraph of a previous Clause?

Captain BOWYER: I am only pointing out that these are very wide terms—"or for the enforcement of this Act." I only rise to emphasise the protest made by the hon. Member opposite against any man having his house invaded without notice, and I do submit there can be no harm at all in inserting the words in paragraph (b) as well as in paragraph (a).

Amendment made in lieu of Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 14, at the beginning, insert "after giving reasonable notice."—[Mr. W. R. Smith.]

CLAUSE 16.—(Definitions.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 11, line 23, after the word "worker" insert the words "who has attained the age of twenty-one years and".

Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a matter largely of administrative feasibility. There are a great many people who are efficient and capable at 20, or even 19, years of age, and it would not be at all fair to exclude these men from the benefit of the scheme. It is a fact that under the Corn Production Act., the Committee fixed rates associated with various ages, and these Committees will take advantage of their local knowledge in fixing the age. This, I think, is a matter that is rightly left to local discretion to a very considerable degree. The question of laying down a rigid standard, I think, has been debated in another place with some lack of full investigation and realisation of all the arguments. To lay down a standard would not be of assistance and would, in many cases, mislead. Therefore, we must certainly disagree with this Amendment.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. WOOD: I do not quite understand this, and I am not quite satisfied with the point the right hon. Gentleman has developed. As I understand the position, the Bill gives power to Committees to lay down minimum rates for workers. It says nothing, as far as I can see in the Bill, to suggest that they should not fix the rate for a boy of 14 as for an able-bodied man of 25. That is obviously not what the Bill means. There seems to be a very astonishing doctrine in legislation which suggests that we should rely entirely in these matters of legal definition on the construction which the Committee may, or may not, place on the Bill. What would happen under this Clause as it stands is that, if a farmer or a committee did not fix a separate rate for boys, as they are not bound to do under the Bill, and if a farmer wants to pay a boy of 14 or 15 less than he would pay an able-bodied man, he has to get a permit for every single boy all over the committee's area. That is obviously an absurd position, and I think that logically follows from the Bill as it stands. It may be that the other place fixed the age too high when they said 21, but I believe that under the Corn Production Act—the hon. Gentleman opposite who had experience on the wages board will know—there were some
regulations by which 21 was taken as the age. If that is too high I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether he could not take 18, and if by taking 18 he would not make the Bill more watertight and satisfactory from the drafting point of view. With regard to all those small Amendments I hope he will not think that the agreement which he and we arrived at has the effect of making the Bill a verbally inspired Bill at every point and that no comma or stop can be altered. That was never present in my mind.

Mr. SMITH: Here, again, the wording is taken from the old Act and there was no fixed age then. Therefore, if no difficulty arose in administering the Act during those four years, I do not think it is likely that the difficulties that the right hon. Gentleman has indicated will arise on this occasion. What will happen in practice will be this. The different committees will fix the age at which what will be the man's wage will be offered, and then a graduated rate will be established downwards from that point. The objection to 21 being in the Bill is that in certain parts of the country, perhaps where arable farming is carried on mostly, it is quite well known that young lads of 19 and 20 do a full man's work. They do ploughing, and I think perhaps with the exception of corn carrying they do practically every operation on the farm. Therefore, it would be unfair to put in the Bill a limitation which, if the Committee wish, might allow the man's wage to have application to lads of 19 or 20 or whatever age they might decide. The House will rest assured there will be no higher age than 21. That is the age which has always been considered. It may be in other parts of the country, where stock farming is carried on, that young lads are not looked upon as being as capable workers as in other respects. I am rather surprised that my right hon. Friend should raise this point with a view to putting rigidity in the Bill. The attitude from that side has always been to trust the local committee. What we are asking the House to do in disagreeing with this Amendment is to leave these things to the discretion of the committee, and then they can make orders to meet the exigencies of the case. I do not think there is the slightest danger of anything taking place as he suggests of
every individual case of a youth or young person being brought up for the purpose of a permit. Scales of wages can be just as well fixed under this as under the old scale. The matter should be left to the discretion of the local committee.

Mr. WOOD: I only want to make it quite plain to the hon. Gentleman that he has not understood the point, with all respect to him, because he knows as well as I do that we are anxious to leave all possible discretion to the committees. What gives rise to the whole difficulty is when you put this definition of the able-bodied man side by side with Sub-section (4) of Clause 2. It says: "In fixing minimum rates a committee shall, so far as practicable, secure for able-bodied men such wages as in the opinion of the committee are adequate to promote efficiency and to enable a man in an ordinary case to maintain himself and his family in accordance with such standard of comfort as may be reasonable in relation to the nature of his occupation." An able-bodied man is defined as being any male worker. That means a boy of 14. That means that the wages of a boy of 14 are to be applicable to enable that boy to maintain himself and his family in efficiency. That is absurdly bad drafting. I only regret that the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of drafting is not equal to his great knowledge of agriculture.

Lords Amendment:

In page 11, line 23, leave out from "incapable" to "off" in line 25.

Mr. SMITH: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This has a bearing on the question of the granting of permits, and therefore, perhaps, is of greater importance than may appear. These conditions set out here form the basis on which the Committee may grant a permit of a lower rate of wages. Here again we have followed the line of experience which proved very satisfactory, and I would like to suggest to the House to leave this question open merely that the word "incapable" is going to place the labourer in many instances at a great disadvantage. There
should be a limit at which permits can be applied for and granted. There you have the terms wide enough surely to satisfy any reasonable question. It must be an infirmity. It must be something that takes away from the labourer his capacity as a worker. "Incapable " may be argued that he is just a shade below in skill as a worker, yet he would be performing tasks that an ordinary labourer would be called upon to perform, and possibly performing them just as well. We ask the House to disagree with the Lords.

Mr. FOOT: The difficulty I have is in following the hon. Gentleman in the importance he attaches to this definition. I think the special permit was quite covered by Clause 2, Sub-section (3) of the Bill. Clause 2, Sub-section (3) does deal with the permit given to the worker who is below the normal, and the words are there retained—
…. is so affected by any physical injury or mental deficiency or any infirmity due to age or to any other cause.
These words, I understand, have been untouched in another place. There is an advantage in keeping the same words in the definition as in the earlier section, but I do not think it is worth while insisting upon it. I do not think it will affect Section 2 in the slightest. I do not think any workman can be in the slightest influenced by it. The hon. Member may know that very little importance was attached to this definition by his spokesman in another place. He himself said here: "I do not think any committee would regard such a boy as an, able-bodied man." Speaking further on this definition, he said: "I do not think it means any difference…the definition will be just as well as it is before."

Lords Amendment:

In page 12, line 9, at the end, insert the following new Sub-section:
(2) For the purpose of this Act the Scilly Isle shall be deemed to be a county, and the area comprising the Ulverston Rural District and the Grange, Ulverston and Dalton-in-Furness Urban Districts shall, if the Minister so directs, be deemed to be a detached part of the County of Lancaster.

Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It is necessary to keep it in order in regard to the working of the Schedule. As these areas must be classed as counties this Amendment is necessary.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Constitution and Proceedings of Agricultural Wages Committees of the Agricultural Wages Board.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 13, line 11, after "two," insert "impartial."

Agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Counties and Com bined Counties for which the First Agricultural Wages Committees are to be established.)

Lords Amendment:

Pages 15 and 16, leave out the Second Schedule and insert the following Schedule:

COUNTIES AND COMBINED COUNTIES FOR WHICH THE FIRST AGRICULTURAL WAGES COMMITTEES ARE TO BE ESTABLISHED.

Combinations of Counties for which Committees are to be Established on the First Establishment of Committees.

Counties of Bedford and Huntingdon.
Counties of Cambridge and Isle of Ely.
Counties of Cornwall and Scilly Isles.
Counties of Cumberland and Westmorland.
Counties of Leicester and Rutland.
Counties of Lincoln, Parts of Kesteven and Lincoln, Parts of Lindsey.
Counties of Northampton and Soke of Peterborough.
Counties of Southampton and Isle of Wight.
Counties of East Suffolk and West Suffolk.
Counties of East Sussex and West Sussex.
Counties of Anglesey and Carnarvon.
Counties of Denbigh and Flint.
Counties of Merioneth and Montgomery.
Counties of Pembroke and Cardigan.
Counties of Radnor and Brecknock."

Agreed to.

Ordered, "That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill."

Committee nominated of Mr. Thomas Williams, Mr. George Edwards, Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. Edward Wood and Mr. Joseph Lamb.

Three be the quorum.

To withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Warne.]

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported later, and agreed to.

To be communicated to the Lords.—[Mr. Warne.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

ANGLO-SOVIET TREATY.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby): I must apologise to the House for not having the White Paper which was promised by the Prime Minister before this discussion took place, but the circumstances in which I have been working have been rather unusual, and I could not get the Paper prepared in time, the reason being that negotiations between the two delegations have been continued within the last 24 hours, and a settlement was finally reached at half past three to-day. It has been a race against time, because I was very anxious that the settlement should be announced to the House before its rising for the Session, and I was also anxious that the House should have an opportunity of examining the Treaty before the Recess. I must again apologise that this intention has been frustrated, but hon. Members will remember that we have laid down the principle that treaties must lay on the Table of the House for 21 Parliamentary days before ratification. Therefore there will be the opportunity in the 20 days in the next Session before ratification if a discussion is desired.
This conference has taken about three and a-half months, and has been conducted throughout in a spirit of friendliness. Perhaps the method which I have found it right to adopt has not always been very orthodox, but I think most people will agree that if we can get closer to an understanding by private conversations rather than by formal conferences, you have every right to adopt that method of procedure; and it has been
to a large extent by conversations that many of the outstanding features have gradually been dealt with. At the same time we have had sub-committees working indefatigably during these months at the detail which was necessary for framing the various parts of the Treaty.
Of all the difficult problems with which we found ourselves confronted when we came into office, I doubt if there was one more difficult than the relations between Russia and Great Britain. To begin with, there was the War in which we were allies together. Then there was the outbreak of the Russian revolution. Then there was the long period of the non-interventionist policy, and meanwhile in Russia they had been fighting, not only their foes that surrounded them, but other and perhaps even more desperate enemies, such as famine. The formation of the new system in Russia brought about a state of affairs which made their political and economic life different from that of Western Europe. Then, a degree of animosity and prejudice was engendered against the Soviet regime, which I think is almost unequalled in the feelings displayed in this country against any other country.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: He is referring to Mrs. Snowden.

Mr. PONSONBY: For some time past I have always been interested to read and believe in letters and articles and speeches about various countries in Europe, but when I have seen paragraphs, speeches and letters about what is taking place in Soviet Russia, experience has taught me that they are not to be relied on. Whether it be in one direction or in another direction, the degree of animosity and prejudice has been so great that it has been impossible to get any authentic information from that part of the world. During this time, the relations between the two countries had not only been strained but broken, and they continued to be broken for a number of years. At the same time when I found myself confronted with the task of trying to adjust these differences, and to knot together the broken strands of the rope, I found that the two systems in many ways have conflicting notions. I have had to steer my ship very carefully between the two rocks on either side.
I have been accused of being in the pockets of the Bolshevists, and I have been accused of being in the pockets of the official experts. I have a natural abhorrence of being in anybody's pocket, and I think the result will show that I have taken the line which is likely to lead to the very best result for both countries.
In entering into these negotiations, we of the British Delegation did not do so desiring to take any advantage of or to corner or trip the Soviet delegates, or in any way to steal a march on them, but rather to represent legitimate British interests, and to encourage the Soviet Government to show themselves worthy of our confidence, and, therefore, of the confidence of the world. Without a Paper before the House, it would obviously be wrong of me to enter into any detailed technical point, but I want to give the House as full an account as I can of the agreement that has been reached.
There is a commercial Treaty, which is a separate document, and there is a general Treaty which has also been agreed upon. With regard to the commercial Treaty, it follows the usual lines of commercial treaties. There are one or two points in it of which I may tell the House, and which, I think, will be regarded as satisfactory. We have received unconditional most-favoured nation treatment for our goods, and in return for that we have admitted the Soviet Union into the Export Credit Scheme. In another article there are full navigation provisions, and there is most-favoured nation treatment for our coastal trade. There is an important Clause with regard to arbitration in contracts, and there are all the other usual Clauses which occur in commercial treaties. I think, perhaps, I ought to note one rather unusual Clause which is likely to be the subject of discussion. At the beginning of the Treaty, in the Second Article, we take into account the Soviet Union monopoly of foreign trade, and we grant to a small number of the Trade Delegation diplomatic immunity for themselves and for the existing office of the Trade Delegation.
This is an unusual departure, in fact, it is a new departure. If a Labour Government does not make a new departure nobody else will. So far as we are concerned in the agreement both with Italy and Germany there is a similar Clause, although it is not so confined.
Both in the German and the Italian Agreements there was a Clause which extended this immunity very much further than we have done in the Second Clause of our Treaty. After all we were prepared to admit that the Soviet Union has a monopoly of trade as traders, and we have given them this very restricted privilege.
Now I come to the general Treaty in which there is to begin with a recital of the various treaties that existed between the former Russian Government and this country, and there we find enumerated those which have lapsed, and these is a small number being renewed. There are some which may require revision but those are the bi-lateral treaties. With regard to the multi-lateral treaties it was obvious that we could not deal with them because you could not deal with such treaties without having the consent of the other signatories. There were certain multi-lateral treaties which could be renewed by a bi-lateral agreement between the two countries, and wherever this was possible it has been done. They are mostly technical conventions, protocols, and declarations.
The Treaty then goes on to make provision for a Fisheries Agreement. The question of the definition of territorial waters, of course, must be left over until we get an international agreement an that point. You cannot get a bi-lateral arrangement on this question, but it is important that we should get a satisfactory fisheries agreement, and this has been done. I will mention one point. The line which has been agreed to in the White Sea and the entrance to it is parallel of latitude 67–40, which satisfies our experts, and I think will be satisfactory to our fishermen.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Can the Under-Secretary say, roughly, how many miles that line will be from the shore?

Mr. PONSONBY: That is difficult to define, because it is in the narrow neck of the White Sea which extends out a great deal, and the line is across the narrow part. The discussion always has been whether it should be beyond the natural coastal line of latitude 69 or whether it should be right down into the channel which leads
to the White Sea in latitude 67. This is an arrangement which falls between the two.

Mr. McNEILL: Does this not mean that our fishermen will be excluded from the area in which they have considered themselves entitled to fish?

Mr. PONSONBY: I do not think that is the case at all. I come now to the part of the Treaty about which interest naturally concentrates chiefly, and that is the whole question of the debts and claims. I need hardly say that it is this part of the work that has occupied our attention mostly during three-and-a-half months. There are three classes of claims. In the first place there is the bondholder; secondly, claims that come under the miscellaneous category, and lastly the property claims. We had to consider a decree of repudiation on the part of the Soviet Government of these claims, and also a decree of nationalisation, and while we had to see that British interests were safeguarded, our task was to do nothing to interfere or to express any opinion on the Soviet laws and decrees.
On this matter I think I shall certainly carry my hon. Friends behind me with me when I say that our contention has always been that whatever opinion we might have of Soviet institutions or the Soviet system it was no business of ours. After all they are attempting rather swiftly a great experiment. They may succeed or they may fail. [An HON. MEMBER: "They have failed!"] Of course every new experiment is laughed at by those people who are incapable of making any experiment themselves. The course of history shows that sometimes such experiments may gradually go through a phase of alteration, and ultimately settle down for the benefit of those for whom they are devised. At any rate it is not our intention to criticise or to come up against the Soviet decrees and laws. At the same time we were determined that the legitimate rights of British citizens should be recognised.
With regard to the bondholders, when I was addressing the House on this subject before, I was not able to do anything but make an apology for the long duration of these negotiations and I spoke of some of the difficulties we had encountered in getting the bondholders to express themselves.

Mr. MILLS: Or to agree.

Mr. PONSONBY: I do not think so, but we found some difficulty in finding anybody who was authorised to speak on behalf of all the bondholders. They are a large number of people, and their interests cannot very well be represented by a committee. We have got in Article 6 an admission of liability from the Soviet Government, and an assurance on their part that they will negotiate with the bondholders. [An HON. MEMBER " Will they pay them?"] I believe they are in process of doing so with a very considerable number of them.

Sir F. WISE: Does that include the Government loans?

Mr. PONSONBY: No, I am speaking only of the private bondholders. In dealing with a large country like Russia I think it ill becomes us in dealing with a very great people, whenever they are mentioned, to deride them. Hon. Members opposite may very likely answer me by saying that they use very abusive language about His Majesty's Government, but my experience is that when people scoff and abuse me it is all the more incumbent on me to behave like a gentleman.

Mr. E. C. GRENFELL: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: It would be very much better if hon. Members would put their questions afterwards, and not interrupt.

Mr. PONSONBY: I will do my best to make the point clear, and I will refer to the settlement with the bondholders in a moment. With regard to the miscellaneous claims, there is to be an arrangement by which those claims shall be investigated and a lump sum decided upon. With regard to the property claims, over these we had perhaps the greatest difficulty. Both sides are to appoint members on a committee, which will investigate the claims and come to a decision as to compensation. I will tell of all these three sets of claims in a different way. The principle that we have adopted in this Treaty has been not to attempt to reach a settlement in figures on these classes of claims but, rather, to get a decision in principle and to get machinery set up with a view to reaching the necessary settlement. We started by attempting to get figures, but we found
that it was a very difficult task, and, finally, that it would probably prolong our discussion for a further considerable time. We thought, therefore, that it was very much better to get the machinery and method arranged as a first step, and, as hon. Members will see in a moment, this Treaty is in itself a first step. When one part at least of the bondholders are satisfied with the terms reached, when His Majesty's Government are satisfied with the lump sum reached as a settlement of the miscellaneous claims, and when there is an agreed settlement with regard to the property claims, then these agreements will be embodied in a subsequent Treaty, and, arising out of that Treaty, the Government will submit to Parliament a proposal guaranteeing a loan to the Soviet Government.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL - MAITLAND: Does that settlement include both the sterling and the rouble bonds?

Mr. PONSONBY: I am at a disadvantage, because even I have not got a copy of the final documents. [An HON. MEMBER: "Has anyone?"] I will give the right hon. Gentleman an answer to-morrow. Let me give the House more clearly an account of the procedure which will be adopted, so as to show how Parliament is safeguarded. This Treaty, which I hope will be signed to-morrow, will remain on the Table of the House for 21 Parliamentary days, so that there will be an opportunity for detailed discussion, if necessary, before ratification. After that, agreements have to be reached on all these different categories of debts and claims. When agreement is reached on those, a second Treaty will be introduced. That, of course, will be subject also to being laid on the Table of the House for 21 days, and, arising out of that, there will be a Financial Resolution and a Bill for the loan which will go through all its stages

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Can the hon. Gentleman state the amount of the contemplated loan?

Mr. PONSONBY: No; that has naturally to be decided after these agreements have been reached.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: We are not pledged in any way to any amount?

Mr. PONSONBY: No, there is absolutely no pledge as to the conditions, or the amount of the loan. That is to be decided after the agreements have been reached. I have still two important points. One concerns the Government debts and the other the claims, the interventionist claims. With regard to the latter, His Majesty's Government and the Labour party are in a different position from hon. Members opposite. Hon. Members opposite were supporters of the interventionist policy, and my hon. Friends behind me have consistently, ever since it was inaugurated, denounced and repudiated it. But the claims that were put in under that heading were naturally of such a character as to bear no sort of financial or economic analysis. They can hardly be treated as a financial matter at all. Really, it is much more of a political contention on the part of the Soviet Union. But both the Government debts and the interventionist claims are set aside in Article 9, for the time being; they are, if I may use the expression, put into cold storage. [HON. MEMBERS: "Frozen!" Another point which I may refer to, and which I know will be of interest to hon. Members opposite, is the question of propaganda. We have inserted a Clause with regard to propaganda which resembles to a large extent the propaganda Clause in the Trade Agreement, but in some respects it is even more severe.
8.0 P. M.
Beyond the question of debts are some minor matters with which I do not think I ought to trouble the House, especially as they have been alluded to before. It is undoubtedly the question of these debts and claims that is of importance. We had the alternative before us of wrangling and disputing and investigating for a very protracted length of time, or else doing our best to come to some form of agreement by which liability would be declared, and by which there would be, not only a reasonable prospect of a settlement, but a very strong inducement for a settlement. This, I think, we have succeeded in doing. Our attitude—and I am certainly not ashamed of it—towards the Soviet Government and the Russian people has been from the outset absolutely consistent. We had hardly been a fortnight in office before we did an act which was condemned very strongly by hon. Members opposite. That was the
recognition of the Soviet Government. We feel that when you have a dispute with a man, and you go to him and say, "Before I shake hands with you, we must settle this matter," your conversations are likely to last a very long time, whereas if you go up to the man and you shake his hand first, and then say, "Now let us get to a settlement," you are likely to reach your settlement very much quicker. The course we took then in that Act of recognition is justified by the fact that we have been able in such a very short time to get this agreement. [An HON. MEMBER: "What have you got? What does it amount to?"] The claimants will find that they will get—[HON. MEMBERS: "What? At our expense!"] If they do not, then the subsequent Treaty will not materialise. I think the Act of recognition was a right move, and I again say it was consistent with the policy always adopted by the Labour party not to give the flabby handshake of patronage, but the firm grip of friendship. I fully admit that the House is very much at a disadvantage in not having the White Paper, and I hope it will not entirely blame me, because these negotiations have been protracted to almost the last moment, and it was a physical impossibility to prepare it. I should like to say that throughout I have been supported by colleagues whose expert knowledge has made up for my own palpably ineffective equipment; and they have not only shown mental agility, but also physical endurance. I was fully prepared for the mental strain of such a Conference, but I did not quite understand that it was going to involve such a physical strain. I must say that, one and all, they have given once more a proof of the exceptionally high quality of our Civil Service. I should like to add one other word, namely, that throughout I have found, in the leader of the Russian Delegation, M. Rakovsky, a friendly disposition, an accommodating desire, and an intense wish to reach a settlement, and I am indebted to him for help on many occasions in steering round some very difficult corners. The fact that hon. Members will attack this Agreement now and when they read it does not, in my mind, detract from the goodness of it, and I believe that those who understand how necessary it is that the sores in Europe should be healed as soon as
possible will mitigate their criticism a good deal. I believe that this Treaty which it is my privilege to announce to the House to-day is an instance of the method in our international relations which has been laid down by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that is to say, to avoid acrimonious discussions over petty points and quarrelling over detached issues, and to seek a general settlement on broad lines based on conciliation and co-operation, and by this means to do our share to help to restore to Europe and the world friendly relations and hopes of recovery, and to make the peoples in Europe feel that at last Governments are using their power and their authority, not always for warlike operations, but for the establishment of peace and brotherhood, not only in theory, but in practice.

Mr. McNEILL: There were cheers from hon. Gentlemen opposite when my hon. Friend got up to make his statement. Had those cheers been merely to express sympathy with him in having brought to a conclusion a very onerous task, or at all events having brought it to a pause, I should have been very glad to have joined in them, but I am afraid that that must be the limit of my sympathy. I must repeat the complaint which I made on the last occasion when we had to discuss this matter. The hon. Gentleman and those who sit with him and behind him certainly will not contend, I am sure, that the announcement that he has made is one of little importance, or that there is little importance to be attached to the work upon which he has been engaged. I have every reason for thinking that it is less important than at one time I anticipated, but still, there is no doubt that these negotiations which have been going on for four months with the representatives of Russia are a very important matter, and on no occasion have we had the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on no occasion have we had the Prime Minister, as the representative of the Government, to explain, with the authority which he alone can wield, what is proposed and what is being done. I do not by any means share the complete scorn of Under-Secretaries that characterises the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). He told us on one occasion the principles that guided him
in such appointments. But, however that may be, I do think that, important as the Under-Secretary's position may be, and notwithstanding the engagements which the Prime Minister has, we ought to have had him here, either to-day or before we are called upon to make a decision.
I want at the very outset to protest against the procedure which is being followed, so far as I can understand the intentions of the Government. The hon. Gentleman has apologised to us for not having put in our hands the White Paper and the Treaty which is the basis of this discussion, and he asked for indulgence for himself because it had not been presented. I am sure that the House is quite willing to make every possible allowance both for him and for the difficult circumstances which have made it impossible to produce that White Paper now, but that ought not to affect the rights of the House, and it ought not in any way to preclude the House from having the fullest possible opportunity for discussing this Treaty. An hon. Member says, "It will have." I hope it will, but it does not appear so from the statement of my hon. Friend. The procedure is, as I understand it, that this Treaty is to be signed to-morrow, and, if I am right in understanding that, it is a distinct breach of pledge. It is a distinct breach of the clearest possible understanding, and I shall protest against it as strongly as possible, as I shall show in a moment.
The Treaty, as I understand, is to be signed to-morrow, and then it is to lie upon the Table of the House for 21 Parliamentary days—that is, as we learn this afternoon, after the 28th or 29th September; and during those 21 days, so far as we can anticipate, the time of the House under the disposition of the Government will be very fully occupied in debating the Irish proposals which the Government are going to bring forward. I want to call the attention of my hon. Friend to the language which he used on this point, because we have been very anxious about the matter. On the 7th July, one of my right hon. Friends asked a question of the hon. Gentleman:
Are we to understand that if this Commercial Treaty is made, all rights we may possess under Article 10"—
that is, of the Trade Agreement—
will be given up, and no compensation will be available for any British subject?
I may say in passing that we have heard nothing on that very important point about Article 10, and I shall ask the hon. Gentleman later about it, but for the moment I am calling attention to this. His reply to my right hon. Friend's question was as follows:
All these matters are closely knit together, and I cannot go into the various details now.
That is to say, he gave no answer on that point. He continued:
I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition that this agreement"—
that is, the one which he is now signing—
line by line and word by word, will be laid before the House, and there will be full discussion upon it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1924; col. 1919, Vol. 175.]
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] The cheers of hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot disguise the fact that, whereas that was a distinct promise that this would be discussed line by line and word by word, before it was signed by the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]

Mr. PONSONBY: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I never said "before it was signed by the Government." I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman in his experience has never come across an instance in which a treaty was presented to Parliament before it was signed. Between signature and ratification is the opportunity for Parliament to discuss it, and His Majesty's present Government have laid down that principle.

Mr. McNEILL: I do not think that what I have already read needs any reinforcement, but this is what the hon. Gentleman said on an earlier occasion when he was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare):
Will the Government undertake to enter into no Treaty until this House has had an opportunity of discussing it?
Mr. PONSONBY: Certainly, Sir."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July, 1924; col. 1518, Vol. 176.]

Mr. PONSONBY: - I must really emphasise the fact that you do not enter into a treaty of engagement until your treaty is ratified. My right hon. Friend, as an expert on these matters, surely knows that there is no precedent whatever for a treaty being discussed in this House before it has been signed.

Mr. McNEILL: I am quite content to leave the matter there. If the hon. Gentleman really thinks that what he is now doing is a fulfilment of these pledges which I have quoted to the House, I can, of course, say nothing else than that I heartily disagree with him.
I do not intend to follow the hon. Gentleman in a good deal of what he said. I do not think we need concern ourselves very much with what he said about the prejudice against the Soviet Government which he said is very common; nor was it at all necessary for him to assure us that he himself was not in the Soviet pocket. I think he is much more likely to be in their heart than in their pocket. But the hon. Gentleman—and here I must insist upon correcting him—has done what is so constantly being done among hon. Gentlemen opposite when they are speaking of the views which we hold on this side of the House with regard to Russia. We hold certain very strong views with regard to the small oligarchy, whom we regard with utter detestation, and all their methods; but that does not mean that we have anything but the highest possible esteem and regard and sympathy for the Russian people; and we have that sympathy for this very plain reason, that we know very well that they are the people who suffer most.
When the hon. Gentleman said that he was guided by the principle, during these negotiations, that the laws and decrees of Russia are no concern of ours, as a general principle I entirely agree with him. They are no concern of ours, with this exception, that, if we are to enter into trade relations with Russia, and especially if Russia is to have financial advantages from us, then it does become a matter of prime importance to see whether the decrees and laws of Russia, and the institutions of Russia, are or are not such as give ordinary protection to life and property. I need hardly remind the hon. Gentleman, who gave such a very high testimonial to those with whom he was negotiating, that the Prime Minister himself anticipated the course of the negotiations by saying, and it was a very wise thing to say, that he was not going to be misled by any monkey tricks of the Russian negotiators—rather a strange phrase to use towards the diplomatic representatives of a
friendly Power with whom he was about to enter into negotiations. At all events, he showed that the Prime Minister, whatever the Under-Secretary may feel, was under no delusion whatever about the people with whom he had to negotiate.
There was one special point with which the hon. Gentleman has dealt which appears to me to be really of central importance in the whole matter, and that is when he says this Government is going under certain conditions to guarantee a loan to the Soviet Government. Here again I am obliged to say that to do so appears to me to be a most complete violation of a Parliamentary pledge given over and over again. On 5th March the Prime Minister was asked:
Whether the Government have given any guarantee under the Trade Facilities Act or the Overseas Credits Acts in connection with the promotion of trade with Russia; and, if so, of what nature?
The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th March, 1924; col. 1426, Vol. 170.]
That, of course, is not inconsistent with what has been done, but on 18th June the Prime Minister was asked
whether the Government has considered or proposes to consider the guarantee of any Russian obligation?
The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.
Of course, the Prime Minister and the Government are perfectly entitled, if they like, to change their minds from time to time, but having given such a very specific and explicit pledge no longer ago than 18th June, I am surprised that they should have so rapidly changed their mind and should not have thought it right to give any notice to the House that they did so. On 30th June another Member asked the Prime Minister:
Whether any, and if so what, progress has been made in the negotiations between the British and Soviet delegates who have been in conference in London for nearly three months and whether the Government has rendered any assistance in the matter of raising a loan in this country for the Moscow Government, and, if so, what is the nature of that assistance? 
The Prime Minister replied:
I have undertaken to make a full statement to the House when negotiations have reached a stage which justifies my reporting to Parliament upon them. As regards the question of a loan, there is nothing to add to the reply which was given to a question by the hon. Member for Epping on 18th
June, and to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull on 25th June.
That was the two explicit statements I have just read to the House that the idea of guaranteeing a loan was not contemplated. As there has been such a distinct departure from these assurances, it is important that we should know exactly what has been said. A Member of the party opposite on 23rd June asked:
If steps will be taken to expedite the arrangement of such a loan with the utmost urgency.
Again the Prime Minister replied by referring him to the previous answers already given. On 20th May an official communique was issued from the Foreign Office, from which I should like to read a few words.
The British delegation said it would be necessary to examine the Soviet proposals more closely before pronouncing upon them, but that it should be understood at once that any assistance which the British Government could give towards the floating of a loan would of necessity be very much limited and that there could be no question of any Government guarantee.
The delegation repeated that any guarantee by the Government was out of the question. They felt that too much importance might easily be attached to the necessity for a guarantee. They hoped the Soviet Government would find no difficulty in raising the money. So that throughout all this period, both by an official communique from the Foreign Office, not pressed by any Member in the House, and by questions put in the House over and over again, we had the most definite assurances that the idea of guaranteeing a loan for the Russian Government was not in contemplation and was out of the question. Now when the House is within an hour or two of separating for months, and at this very inconvenient hour of the day, the hon. Gentleman is sent down here by the Prime Minister to tell us that a Treaty will be signed to-morrow which absolutely violates all these assurances.
The hon. Gentleman has told us, truly, that the really important matter of his negotiation was the question of debts and claims. I wonder whether any Member of the House has really gathered any clear idea of what is proposed to be done, more than it has been at any time in the last two or three years, with regard to these matters. As far as I was able to follow
the Under-Secretary, all that is arranged is that they have agreed to negotiate with the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] There is no reason why they should not have done so at any time. I do not want to detract from the hon. Gentleman's achievement, but to sit for four months carrying out the most onerous negotiations, the whole country expectant as to what was to come out of them, and you have this great achievement that the Soviet Government and the bondholders have undertaken to negotiate. Take the question of the miscellaneous claims. What has been done about that? The hon. Gentleman said it had been arranged that a lump sum was to be paid. I thought his next sentence would be to tell us what the lump sum was in order that we might form some idea whether it was a fair settlement of the claims put forward, but not at all. He does not know what the sum is.

Mr. MILLS: Nor the claims.

Mr. McNEILL: No, nor the claims. The hon. Member has most kindly brought out my point that nothing has been done. It is exactly as it was before. No one knows what the Soviet Government are prepared to offer. Moreover we have not been told by whom the lump sum is to be decided. A Government that has been so busy in framing all sorts of schemes of arbitration for deciding every dispute between one country and another might have thought of some method by which, in the event of ultimate disagreement between the claimants and the Soviet Government, it might have been decided by arbitration or otherwise what this lump sum should be. There is only one thing which, as far as I can see, really shows that something has been done. I gathered from the Under-Secretary that in Article 6 there is an admission of liability by the Soviet Government, but an admission of liability in regard to what I was not able to gather. An admission of liability at all is worth something; but it would be worth a great deal more if it were not for the fact that everything about which liability is admitted is hung up for future negotiation and decision by the parties concerned.

Mr. MILLS: Like the French business.

Mr. McNEILL: I agree that there are many other things which are open to the
same observation, but the Under-Secretary came here prepared to make a statement about the result of his negotiations. I must express my very great disappointment that the result is so insidious, and that it is so vague and uncertain in its manner and procedure. When we come to the actual contents of the Treaty which is, apparently, to be signed to-morrow, it is all hanging on future negotiations and on something which is to be subsequently put into a second Treaty.
Having regard to all the proceedings that have been going on, I can only draw one conclusion. Last night, the final communique issued from the Foreign Office stated—
As the Soviet delegation was unable to accept the amendments and concessions offered in regard to Article No. 14 of the draft Treaty, no agreement was reached, negotiations broke down, and the Treaty will not be signed.
I think that tells us a good deal. What really happened? The negotiations were at an end, and the Government felt that after four months of the fruits of their recognition of the Soviet Government they had nothing to show either to Parliament or the country. The Under-Secretary tells us that they only arrived at some agreement this afternoon. What happened after that communique was issued from the Foreign Office? I think it speaks of panic. The Prime Minister told us yesterday in regard to another matter that he was not the man who would sign a midnight treaty. What happened after the communique was issued from the Foreign Office? I wonder if this is what happened. The Under-Secretary running about all night, going to the telephone at two o'clock, is in a desperate panic for fear he should have to meet the House of Commons this afternoon and to say that nothing had been done. So he goes back to the Foreign Office and gets Mr. Rakowsky and brings back the Russian delegates, and after lunch he manages to get them to sign an agreement that at some future date they will negotiate it all over again and put the result in a second Treaty. "With that," he said, "at any rate, I can go down to the House of Commons and say that we have done something."
I consider the whole thing an utter farce. I would be perfectly willing to join with the rest of the House in laughing at what certainly is in many of its
aspects an extreme comedy, if I did not think that in regard to one important aspect, provision for or even hinting at our guaranteeing of a loan, it is not a comedy but a scandal. The Under-Secretary told us that the Government had started by recognising the Soviet Government, and he explained to us his ethics of recognition and the different species of handshakes. There are two ways in which you can approach the question of recognition of such a Government as the Soviet Government. One is to say to them, "Show yourselves honest, and we will recognise you." That is the principle upon which we on this side of the House proceed. That does not in the least mean, "Form your institutions on the lines that we like." It simply means "Show yourselves an ordinary honest Government, a Government with whom we can do business, a Government we can believe, and then we will recognise you."
The present Government went on a totally different principle. They said, "We will recognise you, and we hope that you will prove honest afterwards." They were not honest then, as the opinion of the Prime Minister has clearly shown from the quotation that I have read from his warning. On another occasion he said that those who supped with the Russians must have a very long spoon. Our view in regard to this projected loan is that Russian credit is not good enough to make it possible for this country to guarantee the loan. We do not believe that such a loan will be raised, even with such a guarantee. We say that if a loan is to be raised for Russia, there is only one principle and one method by which it can be done.
If Russia require a loan to be guaranteed by a foreign Government, it can only be because her financial position does not admit of her stabilising herself and recovering her prosperity. There have been other cases where the same thing was true. It was done in the case of Austria and Hungary. The procedure adopted in those cases was to use the machinery of the League of Nations, and when that machinery was put in operation to exercise very close supervision, if not control, over the financial arrangements of the country enjoying that guarantee. If that method were pursued in this case, and if it were necessary for the sake of
the economic position of Russia to do what was done in other countries in Central Europe, at all events it would be worth consideration whether we should not join in trying to stabilise an economic Russia upon those lines. But that is something very different from what the Government are doing.
I go so far as to say that it might be positively mischievous from our own point of view if this loan guaranteed by the Government were to materialise, because, as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury knows very well, the available funds for loan purposes, whether to foreign nations or for any other purpose, is a limited quantity. I am not a financial expert, and do not pretend to be, and I do not know what the surplus funds at the disposal of this country in the money market may be at any one time, but I believe they are not anything very enormous at the present time. There are very large requirements for capital to be advanced for our Dominions, and trade in our own country is always requiring a large quantity of investment. As we all know, a loan of £40,000,000 is to be raised for Germany under the Dawes scheme, in which, of course, we shall bear some share. Under the circumstances, I doubt very much whether, from the point of view of our own financial and economic situation, it might not be positively mischievous to us if the guarantee of the Government, as presumably it would, were to draw from the money market of this country a large sum—we have not been told what the sum is, but, presumably, it will be a large sum—and to draw it from the pool out of which capital investments must be drawn. Therefore, we on this side of the House strongly object. We are quite willing to consider, when the time comes, the other proposals, shadowy as they are, but I think I am justified in saying that we on this side will most strenuously oppose the guaranteeing of any loan to Soviet Russia, in spite of the assurances which have been given over and over again, and we shall denounce it whenever it is brought forward. The Government must not assume—they have now two months before the House will meet again—and they must not represent to the negotiators on behalf of Russia that it is a fait accompli or an honourable understanding which the House of Commons is bound to observe. We give the fullest notice which we can
now that if this proposal is carried out we shall denounce it in this House whenever we get an opportunity, and we shall denounce it in every part of the country.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I rise to ask for information from the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs rather than to express any definite opinion, because I find it very difficult to express a definite opinion on something which certainly I do not quite understand from the statement made by the hon. Gentleman. I am not imputing any want of care on his part, but I quite realise that the circumstances in which he entered into this agreement were such that he has hardly had time to master it himself. Therefore it was not very easy for him to explain it to the House. The first question which I wish to ask is—why should he not follow the precedent set by the Prime Minister, in communicating to the Press to-night the agreement at which he has arrived although he has not signed it? On Monday there appeared in the newspapers of this country a very long document giving the provisional arrangement made between the Government and the Allies. The Prime Minister said here, "I have not signed it. It has to be revised by my legal experts, and I will not sign it unless I am satisfied on two or three very important matters." Why should not that course have been pursued here? Why should not we get at any rate one day when we can examine these proposals? The hon. Member will admit himself that the statement which he has made in not a very full one. It is a very vital thing to which he is inviting this House and the country to assent. It is very far reaching, and it ought to be explained in very great detail.

Mr. PONSONBY: A White Paper will be issued to-morrow.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: We will not get that White Paper in time to examine it for the discussion. It is no more important than the arrangement with Germany and the whole of our Allies. That was published in the Press. If we could get it the first thing in the morning we should have an opportunity of examining it, but it is impossible to comment upon the incomplete and inadequate statement which we have heard. I am not using
the word "inadequate" as a criticism of the hon. Member's speech, but rather from the point of view of the inadequacy of the explanation to the House of one of the most important decisions ever taken by this Government. May I point out the risk of it? It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say "The Treaty has to lie on the Table of the House for 21 days and the House can reject it." It is a very serious thing for the House of Commons to take the step of rejecting a Treaty which has been signed by any Government, even Treaties which they do not quite like. Even in the case of Treaties like the Treaty of Versailles there was a full discussion, but here you are postponing the discussion until possibly the end of September or possibly November. It might easily go into December. What happens? This thing will be regarded, not so much here as in Russia, as an agreement entered into by which certain most important concessions—and I will point out how important they are—have been made to the Soviet Government.
The hon. Gentleman—I am not complaining of it; other people have done that in the past—was making an appeal to his friends behind and showing how he carried out their ideas, but the Soviet Government will do exactly the same thing in Russia. To-morrow in their newspapers there will be a declaration of what triumphant terms they have had from the British Government, and there will be the same sort of compliments paid to their representatives as those which have been paid here to the hon. Gentleman. They will say "Thanks to Mr. Rakovsky's great skill, thanks to Mr. So-and-So, we have got these things," and then three months afterwards the thing is torn up by the House of Commons. It will look to them like a repudiation of a bargain entered into by the British Government. I do not say that we will quarrel with the Soviet Government. Hon. Members on either side of the House have certainly no quarrel with the Russian people. No people suffered as much from the War as the Russian people. Their casualties were infinitely greater than those of any other of our Allies in that great struggle. So therefore we have no quarrel with them. But let us be quite frank. The hon. Gentleman has a great admiration
for the Soviet Government, but one thing which the Soviet Government has never claimed is that it is a representative Government. Its claim is practically the same claim as that of the Tsars—that it has a sort of divine right. Mr. Lenin always frankly expressed his contempt for democracy. Therefore, so far as the Russian people are concerned, we do not want to make them feel that the people of this country have permitted their Government to enter into a bargain, and three months afterwards have torn it to pieces. It is difficult to explain to them, for their Press in this land of the free which the hon. Gentleman has been lauding—

Mr. PONSONBY: May I correct my right hon. Friend. I never expressed any admiration for the Soviet Government, nor do I laud the Soviet system. I think that it is deplorably bad.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: That is worth eliciting, but whenever we made any mild criticism we were always attacked on that ground. I am not at all sure that I could not cull from the speech of the hon. Gentleman phrases in which he denounced us for our criticism of the Soviet Government. Amongst the things that make it so bad is that there is no free expression of opinion allowed there. The news in the Socialist republic—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is not a Socialist republic"!]—I will say in this collectivist community, is only allowed to be the news which has passed through a very stern censorship. Such a report as is published in Russia to-morrow will be the report of the Soviet Republic, and the hon. Gentleman may depend upon it that it will not be said there that he has made only a short and perfunctory statement and that the real terms are to be disclosed to the House of Commons later on, that the whole thing is in suspense, that three months hence the question will be reconsidered by Great Britain. That is not how it will appear in Russia. It will appear in Russia to-morrow that the hon. Gentleman, in the British House of Commons, pledging the British House of Commons as well as his own Government, had said that the next day he was going to sign a treaty with the Soviet Government—in which he did what? Two things, as far as I can follow him. I do not know what the rest means. The first thing was that he was going to cancel the whole of our debt. That is a very serious thing.

Mr. PONSONBY: I did not say so.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I listened very carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but if he says that it is not so, I accept his statement at once.

Mr. PONSONBY: I did not say "write off" the debt. I said "write down" the debt, and also the counter claims on the part of the Soviet Government.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Surely—as far as I can see—this is a fake. It is a contract in which the space for every essential figure is left blank. The hon. Gentleman says he has entered into a bargain to write down the debt. By how much? I forget what the figures of the debt are, but they run into hundreds of millions. I mean the debt that is due from Russia to us. [HON. MEMBERS "£600,000,000!"] I thought it was £500,000,000 to £600,000,000. There is a similar amount due from France, and there is an amount due from Belgium. There is an amount due from Italy. Is it to go forth that we are to write off or write down the debts hero without a consideration of the whole of the Inter-Allied debts? And by how much? Is it 25 per cent. or 50 per cent.? How much? How can the hon. Gentleman come here and announce a Treaty when he cannot tell us within £400,000,000 how much? After all, here is a subject of the first importance. We are to write off or to write down—

Mr. PONSONBY: The right hon. Gentleman is having an orgy of misrepresentation. The two things, the debts and the international claims, are reserved by Article 9 for discussion at a later date.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There is a statement about something which is known as Article 9. Cannot we see Article 9? The hon. Gentleman, when he explained the Treaty only a minute ago, said he was "writing down" the debt. He is not. He has discovered that he was wrong in the explanation he gave a few seconds ago. It is to be discussed later on. What sort of Treaty is this? Every item of any consequence—[HON. MEMBERS "What about the Treaty of Versailles?"] No, the complaint about the Treaty of Versailles was about things which were decided in it. That was the complaint of hon. Members. I will refer to another of the provisions of this Treaty. What are the arrangements
about the claims I do not know. The hon. Gentleman said that they were to be referred to a Commission. Who is to appoint the Commission? How is it to be constituted? What are the principles upon which it is to adjudicate? Is the lump sum a lump sum to the individuals, or is it a lump sum of £10,000,000, £15,000,000 or £100,000,000 to be distributed by the Commission? I think we ought to know. Does the hon. Gentleman know? He is going to sign to-morrow something of which he has not a ghost of an idea to-night. All he knows is that he is going to sign. Sign what? Well, he is going to trust to luck. Take this loan which is to be guaranteed. It will be known in Russia to-morrow that the British Government has said in the House of Commons that there is to be a guaranteed loan to Russia. [HON. MEMBERS: "Under certain conditions!"] The amount is not specified; the conditions are not specified. [HON. MEMBERs: "Yes!"] No; they are to be discussed. Recently we were discussing the question of our surplus. An hon. Friend said that the surplus for this country was £100,000,000. Out of that you deduct £33,000,000 for the American debt, which leaves £67,000,000. I do not know what the amount is to be from Germany. But there is very little left out of that. We are to guarantee a loan which we would not guarantee to any of our Allies. No guarantee has been invited for any of the other countries. No guarantee is asked for Germany as a condition of a great European settlement, and we, sitting on these benches, should not commit ourselves to supporting a proposal of that kind. I think it is right that should be known, and that the Russian delegation should also know that the House of Commons is not committing itself to vague propositions which will be interpreted in Russia in a form which the Soviet Government itself will communicate to the people. It is unfair to the Russian people. The hon. Gentleman said a very remarkable thing. He complained about criticisms of the Soviet Government as to the effects of their regime in Russia, and went on to say that there was very little information on the subject. Has he made inquiries as to developments taking place there? I am not talking of political developments, but commercial developments, industrial
developments, the way that the works are becoming derelict there. He says he does not know; yet he is going to guarantee a loan upon a security of which he does not even know the conditions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is going to follow the example set by his chief, and is going to let us have in the papers to-morrow morning such information as he has, and then we can come to some conclusion, at any rate, to-morrow upon this subject.

9.0 P.M.

Dr. HADEN GUEST: I am very glad to know that a settlement, although not a complete settlement, has been arrived at by His Majesty's Government and I deplore the extraordinary attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) whose point of view seemed to be influenced by prejudice and who does not appear to realise what a very large amount of harm has been done by the unfortunate folly of preceding Governments in not getting on with the recognition of Russia. I am exceedingly sorry that the Russian Government was not recognised at an earlier stage, and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to face the fact that if there are difficulties in the way at the present time, they themselves, to a large extent, brought those difficulties into being by their actions in the past. They have refused to face the facts of the situation. They have refused to recognise that the Soviet Government with which, as has been said from the Front Bench to-day, this party does not agree as regards its principles, and with which we have not pretended to agree as to all the actions carried out in Russia, but, nevertheless, the Soviet Government is a Government firmly established in Russia and known to be firmly established, at least, since the year 1921. I speak in this matter simply and only as a realist in politics and I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members opposite, including the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Canterbury, to take a realist view of the situation. The settlement of the Russian question is not only urgent for this country but is urgent for the whole of Europe. Unless the Russian question is settled we shall not get a peaceful solution in Europe. I quite agree that it is necessary to face the economic facts as well as the political facts of the situa-
tion. It is necessary to recognise that we are not going to get a very large amount of trade out of Russia in the immediate future, but that is no reason for not having defined relationship with that country. Nobody expects to get a very large amount of trade out of Turkey. We have, nevertheless, negotiated a treaty with that country; we have a defined relationship with that country, and it is necessary we should have a defined relationship with all countries in the world, but especially is it necessary to have a definite relationship with Russia at the present time. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite not to try to draw too close a parallel between what their experience leads them to expect in a country and what the conditions actually are in that country. Russia never was organised in the way in which this country is organised. Hon. Gentlemen opposite speak as though the regime of nationalisation was a new thing in Russia. Are they not aware that the larger part of the riches of Siberia were always Government or State property before the revolution—something over 90 per cent.—and that the Soviet regime in that respect has changed very little indeed. I suggest that before yielding to some of the prejudices which are aroused in this matter and which stand in the way of negotiating an arrangement with Russia, hon. Members should try to look at things as they are and not as they imagine them to be. I am no upholder of the Soviet regime. I have made it quite clear, both in speeches and in writings, that I am not an upholder of that regime, but I know from my experience of European conditions that unless we settle with Russia we cannot settle with the Balkans, with Poland or with Germany on any secure basis. Russia is essential to the security of Europe and I suggest that more essential than any economic arrangement with Russia, is a political settlement. Hon. Members, when considering this matter should look at the map and realise how Russia abuts on the Balkans, abuts on the East and abuts on India and realise the enormous importance to the British Empire of a political settlement with Russia.
As to the question of a loan, I hope hon. Members opposite, for their own sakes, will not commit themselves in advance to an attitude of complete hostility towards a loan. Suppose a loan
were proposed to be spent in this country in the engineering industries, on ships and machinery, especially agricultural machinery, in precisely those trades which are most affected by unemployment, would hon. Member's opposite, as business men, suggest that it was an unbusiness like proceeding? As a, matter of fact, security and good security would have to be given, and Russia, an immensely wealthy country, is in a position to give that security, and I am convinced the Government would be obliged to demand that security for any loan given. Any real settlement of the European question is hound to be slow. Russia is too often regarded as an old country. Its old customs, its picturesque religion, its picturesque peasant costume are referred to, and people think of it as though it were some survival from mediævalism. As a matter of fact, although that is true of certain customs, certain costumes, and certain habits, Russia in effect is a new country. That Russia is not exploited. There are in Siberia enormous deposits of oil, coal, and iron which have never been touched.

Sir F. WISE: Hear, hear! But it is 200 years behind the times.

Dr. GUEST: The hon. Member is making my point. Russia is a country, I agree, some hundreds of years behind Europe and the United States of America in economic development, and when you are considering the Russian problem, you should consider the question of the exploitation of Russia from the point of view of a country 200 years behind in economic development, and not from the point of view of a country exactly parallel with England, France, or Germany. I ask hon. Members once again to look at the matter from a realist point of view. If this Parliament and its workings were described in a bare outline to persons living in another land, they might get a very curious impression of what went on in this country. I remember recently being told that when the Labour Government came into office a large whip was printed in an American journal, with the statement underneath: "The Labour Government uses the same Whip," evidently in reference to the fact that certain officers of Parliament are known as Whips. We have nearly an equally false idea about a good deal of what goes on in Russia. If the word
"Soviet" were always translated "Council," which I understand is what it means, there would have been very much less misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the meaning of the Soviet, and while I myself consider that the Soviet régime is one which does not work very well, because it is very closely like the organisation of the Metropolitan Water Board instead of being a more effective form of organisation, I do not think it justifiable to attack it in the way in which it has been attacked, as though all its régime was meant to be subversive of all civilised procedure.
I have myself, unlike certain hon. Members, visited Russia on two occasions. There is not the slightest doubt in the world that Russia is arising again from the ashes of the War and of the revolution, and is building up a new prosperity on a new foundation. Hon. Members may not like that, but they must recognise it. They must recognise what the facts of the situation are, and they must deal with them without any prejudice. I suggest that if we have, in the settlement brought before us to-night by the Under-Secretary, a settlement which is one that helps us to get the people of this country and the people of Russia more closely together, it is a settlement that we should support, and I suggest that this Russian settlement is the mark of the beginning of an understanding of new settlements that have to be made in the world. Hon. Members opposite have to realise that they cannot settle all questions as they have been settled in the past. The common people of the world, the ordinary people of the world, have to be consulted, and you will not make settlements, as you have done in the past, above the heads of the people. You will have to make settlements which appeal to the ordinary people.
I suggest that sympathy and understanding should be shown in this Debate, and I deprecate very strongly some of the remarks which fell from the right hon. Member for Canterbury, which seemed to me directed by an animosity, not against a form of government, but against a people. It seemed to me very regrettable indeed that, even by inadvertence, any remark of that character should come out. I have myself criticised the Government in Russia very strongly indeed, but
I have attempted never to say anything which would be in the least degree hostile to the people of Russia, for whom I have a very great admiration and, in some respects, even affection. I am sure that that opinion is shared by hon. Members opposite, but let me appeal to them, if that be their feeling, not to make it quite valueless by the forms of words to which they give expression. If they use words which can be construed in Russia as hostility to the Russian people, it will produce the very worst possible impression in Russia, and I suggest also that all of us in this House are to some extent in the position of leaders. Hon. Members opposite belong very largely to a class who have been leaders of men for a very long time. Let me remind them that, in the face of the new world, in the face of new conditions which require a very careful understanding, they should remember that leadership is not only ruling men, but also caring for men and providing for men, and that what we have to do in our relations with Russia is to realise not only the political and the economic situation, as we should have to do in the case of Germany or France, but that Russia is a backward country, a country suffering very serious disabilities, a country saddled with a Government of which many of us heartily disapprove, but a Government with which we have to negotiate if we are going to attempt to help the Russian people.
We have, in a word, to take bigger views and longer views than have been customary in foreign affairs. I appeal to hon. Members opposite and to hon. Members in every part of the House to take bigger views on this matter than have been given expression to from the benches opposite to-night, and to realise that all this nonsensical, prejudiced talk about what has been done in Russia and what has not been done in Russia is something which ought to be swept on one side, in order to leave the stage clear for a new understanding, in which it will be possible for the first time for the people of this country and the people of Russia to approach one another in friendship.

Mr. E. C. GRENFELL: I should like to pay a tribute to the hon. Member for North Southwark (Dr. Guest) at any rate for the earlier part of his speech, in which he displayed great knowledge and spoke with moderation. In the latter part, it
seemed to me that he was beating himself up into a white heat, not about what has been said from these benches, but rather about what might have been said. I did not understand the right hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) to be provocative. There may have been times when he has been, but I listened very carefully to his words—

Dr. GUEST: I think I was justified in saying that the whole attitude and the interruptions of the right hon. Member were most provocative.

Mr. GRENFELL: I do not take that view. In a very large meeting in the City which was held on this subject of Russian debts at which I was allowed to speak, I, personally, and all the other speakers took the line of expressing, as the hon. Member has done, very great regard for the people of Russia. I have had experience in works out there, and I have had experience, not personally but in trading companies, there in the last year, and I am of opinion that the poorer people—and most of them are very poor—are ready to work. They are not very intelligent, because, as the hon. Member has already said, they are backward, but they are not slackers, and they never have been shirkers. But the whole bearing of this discussion is whether we should make an agreement with the Soviet Government, and whether we should lend or guarantee them money. I understood, though there was some conversation going on, that the Under-Secretary stated he had no particular love for the present Soviet Government. I understood the last speaker to be of the same opinion, but it is proposed to make a Treaty and to guarantee a loan to these very people of whom the Under-Secretary does not speak with great respect, and whom, I think, the last speaker has repudiated.

Mr. PONSONBY: I should like to he allowed to correct my hon. Friend. I did not criticise at all the personnel of the Soviet Government, but their system.

Mr. LANSBURY: We objected to Tsardom.

Mr. GRENFELL: Tsardom to-day is not practical politics. I accept the Under-Secretary's correction, but, at any rate, it is the Soviet and the present Soviet officials to whom we are lending this money, and with whom we are making a
treaty, and I would like to ask the Under-Secretary whether the Agreement arrived at to-day is an entirely new one, or whether it is the result of the great labour he and his colleagues have had for the last four months? Is this some arrangement come to yesterday after luncheon, or is it really the result of four months' very arduous work to which these gentlemen have given attention? I do not get an answer to the question.

Mr. PONSONBY: I have been asked so many questions that I was reserving myself to answer them together. But if the hon. Gentleman wants an answer now, I may say this is the result of three and a half months' discussion. A decision was delayed in the last two or three days on specific points.

Mr. GRENFELL: That is the point I wished to arrive at, and for this reason. On Monday I put down a question
to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the short time remaining for discussion, he will issue a Paper giving particulars of the financial proposals to be submitted to the House as a result of the Anglo-Russian Conference, so that Members may have time to consider the same before the promised Debate takes place?
The answer from the Prime Minister was:
Yes, Sir. I propose to have Papers laid before the House prior to the Debate on the results of the Anglo-Soviet Conference."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th August, 1924; col. 2500, Vol. 176.]
It is quite clear we are not going to have a chance of discussing this to-morrow, and it was well known to the Government that to-night it would be discussed. The Under-Secretary told me yesterday that all negotiations were broken off, as was in fact the case, and that these papers, for which I had asked, and which had been promised to me, were ready, and were at my disposal, or, at any rate, I should have them this morning. I submit that the Under-Secretary has stated to-night a rough outline only of his scheme. When I ventured to ask him a question, he said that the details were not quite settled, but my question, and other questions, were general ones. I venture to ask if this is the old scheme, which was only rounded off yesterday afternoon, and whether the scheme was already printed and was to be shown to the House? Would he be good enough,
if it is already printed, to let us have the whole of that to-morrow morning? In that case we shall be able to judge what is the result of four months' argument, and what were the final touches which allowed our Government to come to an agreement. I think that would be very important.
May I turn to the main points of the speech, as representing the City of London, which may not be very popular with hon. Gentlemen on the other side. We have given a good dead of study to this question, and before the Russian Delegation came over here, certain of us, including people of importance in the banking world, thought it right to give to the Chancellor of the Exchequer their opinion as to what were the chances of raising money and of trading generally with Russia. I understood that it was very badly viewed in Russia by the representatives of the Soviet Government. I still think we were right to give that opinion to the Government, and I am borne out in that by the statement of the Prime Minister with regard to the settlement as to Germany. In that case he sought the advice of two leading bankers before negotiations were started, and those bankers informed the Prime Minister and the Chancellor that they wished to give no advice, partly, no doubt, because they found when advice was given before it was not acceptable, but mainly because the agreement to be signed would be hedged round with so many conditions that they felt they could not give advice at that time as to the conditions on which any loan could be raised. When we gave this advice about Russia we had no desire to hamper Russia, but only the desire to help her. We gave that advice, and I understood from the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, when last this matter was discussed in the House, that, having got this advice from the bankers, he said he did not know where else to go, and he went to certain people for advice for the first three months the delegation was here, and got no comfort at all. I think he and I met in other circles afterwards, and he received what I think, was good, and, at any rate, honest advice, which, I think, coincided with the advice given to His Majesty's Government before the delegation came over.
We would like to know why it is considered advisable to make this Agreement at all. I can see no reason for Englishmen wanting to trade with Russia at present, except upon the same basis with which you deal with an extremely wild country, where you may take goods to the sea-shore, and swap them for other goods, but there does not seem much temptation to go inside the country. There has been the case of the Anglo-Caucasian Company, which had the approval of the Russian Government, and has now been told to liquidate. On several occasions we have been informed in this House by the Under-Secretary, and, I believe, by the Prime Minister himself, that through their representative they understood arrangements had been made for the Company to start again, or to be allowed to remain, but, in effect, this company has not been allowed to do so. It is still told to liquidate, and can get no satisfaction from the officials there. From this, I think, we may gather that the officials in Moscow or Georgia, or whichever country the company is trading with, do not give the same answers as are given to the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs in London.
With regard to these guarantees for a loan, the hon. Member for Canterbury has referred to the other loans guaranteed or supported by this Government. I will take them in turn, because I happen to be very closely acquainted with the arrangements made. The first was to Austria, and in that case it was believed that Vienna was the centre of Central Europe as far as finance and trade were concerned; also that it was advisable, almost necessary, to support Vienna and the small State now called Austria in order to start Central Europe trading again. Before lending money to this highly civilised country—I mean a country with a very old civilisation unlike Russia—it was arranged that through the League of Nations, or with the advice of the League of Nations, certain very close restrictions were to be put on the finance of that country. At the same time foreign and independent advisers were to control their finances. With regard to Hungary, the outside countries did not guarantee that loan, but I think I am in order in saying that His Majesty's Government were extremely anxious that the loan should be made to Hungary, and
they brought considerable pressure to bear on the London bankers and money market to take that loan. That is loan No. 2. The loan to Germany, which was discussed yesterday, is a much more important thing than the loan to Russia, yet we have the assurance of the Prime Minister that it is not proposed that England should guarantee that loan. But at the same time by whosoever that loan is made the strongest precautions are being taken by the other countries and by the lenders, to make that loan a safe one. We have in that country, not only a civilisation of the highest order but industrial and banking skill of the first order, and if Germany intends to be honest and to fulfil their agreement they will be able to make that loan good. There is no guarantee that that loan is good, but I think there is every inducement to Germany to fulfil the conditions.
With Russia, we have not for a good many years seen any desire on the part of the existing Government to fulfil the undertakings or respect promises. This loan, if it be made by the investor, will be private property and open to confiscation. If it is made under the guarantee of the British Government, I am not aware that they will pay much more attention to repaying the British Government this new loan than they would to the individual and ordinary investor. I would say now to the Government that if they propose to guarantee this loan—a loan to a country without credit and a country whose Government does not at present enjoy credit or respect—our Government had better do the straightforward thing and put their hands in their pocket and lend their, or indirectly our, money. Do not let them deceive themselves by guaranteeing a loan when they will probably have to pay it. To guarantee a loan and then issue that loan is a most expensive thing. You had better issue an English loan straightforwardly than go to the expense of saying Russia is the debtor and should pay an extra ¼ per cent. That is the ordinary advice which I think might be given by any banker. With regard to conditions in Russia which make a loan desirable, let me point out that on the 22nd May the Under-Secretary said:
Intending travellers to the Soviet areas are informed that His Majesty's Government are unable to afford them the same protection as they do in other countries.
I presume that means that it is not very safe to travel in Russia—less safe than in any other country. I am not aware that the Government have been able to give very much protection to British subjects and British soldiers and sailors in the South of Ireland. It is only about 24 or 36 hours ago that this House was thrilled with the news of the murder of Mrs. Evans. I am not aware that His Majesty's Government are able to take active steps in Mexico to make the Mexicans pay for that, but I understand from the Under-Secretary that Russia is less safe even than those countries. He has signalled to people not to go there. I do not think that is a country to which we wish to lend money. Our Prime Minister, I think, has been treated with more vilification from leading people in Russia than anyone. It might be said that the people who form the Soviet Government are not responsible for the Russian people. That is true. Again, it is to those people that we are lending this money.
I should hope that all sides in the House will agree with what I am going to say now, and I know the Government side will. It may be that on this side we would rather one of the Members now sitting on our Front Bench or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was our Prime Minister. That may be our internal politics, but once this House has put its direction in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald), we wish to say for all parties here that, if the leaders of a foreign country treated him as the leaders of the Soviet have treated our present Prime Minister, it is our duty, on these benches and on those, to resent that treatment; to resent those accusations as much as any hon. Gentleman opposite would resent it if we talked in that way of their present leader. The Under-Secretary has said he is too much of a gentleman to resent this sort of thing. It may be the finest gesture you could make when you receive a blow, to offer the other cheek, but I really think in this case, when you have had this
delegation of Russians sitting with you day after day, when you have been treating them as gentlemen, it is hardly the act of a civilised deputation, or the act of a civilised Government at home who have sent that delegation, to villify most of the Members sitting on the Government Front Bench because, as they believe, the more insults they hurl at you the better terms they would get. I wish to say on behalf of the city and on behalf of a good many financial people that we are generally prompted in business deals to look at the security, not to look at politics and not to consider too much the ordinary moral character of the borrower, but we do consider that if it is a business proposition, and if in the past he has not kept good faith, then we do not want to lend to him. As to-day the world is full of borrowers, we shall choose the people we lend to more carefully than we have in the past. I hope the Government will not deceive themselves by thinking they will get the slightest response to this loan merely as a loan. If they back the bill, no doubt it will be subscribed for in the city, but in that event the five, 10 or 20 millions that they may ask for—I do not know what the figure is—will be taken from much more desirable objects.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I find myself in the position of being able to commiserate with the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He has been very patient and painstaking about these negotiations, and he is to be congratulated on getting at any rate some agreement with the Russians after the last three Governments have made no progress in that direction whatsoever. We had, it is true, a trade agreement, but that was always announced as unsatisfactory by the flower of the Conservative party, led especially by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). It was unsatisfactory from the point of view of British nationals who had a legitimate claim against the Russian Government for goods supplied and services rendered, or for properties nationalised for which they wished some compensation.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: The hon. and gallant Member cannot have read that trading agreement. It contains provisions with regard to that very matter. I
shall be surprised if the agreement which is said now to have been made contains anything better.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps tell us how much cash has been got for these claimants by that trade agreement. I cannot, however, congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on his method of presenting the case. I make every allowance for the fact that he has had an extraordinarily difficult task, and has sat for many continuous hours in hard negotiation; but, nevertheless, he struck me as speaking at the Box with little enthusiasm, and with little recognition of the tremendous thing that he really has accomplished. Up till this agreement, the bondholders were not even recognised as existing, or as having any sort of claim at all. What offers have been made to them now? I am informed that the offers made are something on these lines. If I am proved to-morrow to be wrong, I am in the same position as the rest of the House in not knowing the details, but this is what I understand has been offered to the bond-holders. I got my information from no less a person than the head of the Russian Mission over here, and he has no reason to attempt to deceive. The Russian Government say, "Here are these bonds which were incurred on behalf of the great Russian Empire, from which large and important areas have seceded, or have been annexed by other countries. We lost Poland, one of our great manufacturing districts. We have lost our Baltic ports and our Baltic provinces, Finland and Bessarabia. Therefore, we say that our assets are very much reduced, and that these countries must shoulder part of the debt. Have our Polish friends and our Finnish friends started to pay interest on the Tsarst debts? How much have we got from them?"
The Russian offer was 50 per cent. They said, "We will take an arbitrary sum, and we will write off 50 per cent., which shall he shouldered, or ought to be shouldered, by these seceding States." It must be remembered that Poland has boundaries going far beyond her natural frontiers. Then they said they would pay the 50 per cent over 50 years, or half the sum in cash—25 per cent. in cash. That is an enormous advance on Genoa. The right hon. Gentleman the Member
for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), who interrupted me just now, did not ever get to that stage in his negotiations. He made very little progress when it came to dealing with the question of bonds either at Genoa or here in London when the first Trade Agreement was signed by M. Trotsky and himself and the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). At any rate, 50 per cent. is offered over 50 years, or 25 per cent. cash. That is hard money offered to bondholders.

Mr. HEMMERDE: Does the 50 per cent. include arrears of interest as well?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The total sum.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: To whom was this offer made?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The offer was made to the Committee of Bondholders, representing the holders of Russian bonds. It was made to important holders of Russian bonds, and my information is that, as regards the holders of Russian bonds, as opposed to the holders of Brazilian bonds or Mexican bonds or any other bonds, they were very glad to get such an offer. They saw a prospect of getting some cash down for a debt which in most cases they had completely written off.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: My hon. and gallant Friend will excuse me from interrupting again. It is only to get the facts. Am I to understand that this offer was made direct to the Council of Foreign Bondholders; was it with regard to rouble bonds or only to sterling bonds, and when was it made?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It was made to the representative holders—large holders—of Russian bonds. I have given the source of my information. It was made by the head of the Russian Mission himself. He so informed me.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Were they sterling or rouble bonds?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The whole of the bonds—sterling and rouble. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth may be interested to know that, curious as it may seem to him, my first interest always has been to get justice for our own nationals who have suffered
as the result of the Revolution and Civil War in Russia. That is the way I have always approached this question. I have put British interests, as traders, as concession holders and even as bondholders, first. Naturally the Russian delegates have put Russian interests first, or they would be very poor representatives of their Government.
With regard to the question of property, here you have a number of British property owners who have been dispossessed, whose property has been nationalised, and who have no compensation at all. They are offered a settlement. We do not know the details of it yet. The Russian Government offer to set up a Commission of three of their nationals to sit with three British Commissioners in order to settle the claims made by these property owners. We do not guarantee this Loan and do not carry out the Treaty until the British Government is satisfied that these property owners have received something solid, and that the matter has been dealt with in equity and justice. The policy of the Conservative Government in this matter has been one of war against Russia, and this is the only concrete policy we have had from hon. Gentlemen opposite. That is all they have ever done in this matter. It is true that they had this trade agreement, but their policy in regard to Russia has added to our debt £100,000,000, and not one copper have we got towards that debt. They are now offered the services of a mixed commission—

Sir R. HORNE: I have had considerable experience in regard to this question, and if the hon. and gallant Member looks back to my speeches he will find in them a very different tone to that which he has expressed. I want to ask the hon. and gallant Member when did he ever say a single word in favour of redeeming British interests in Russia?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Invariably. I always said I was in favour of supporting our nationals.

Sir R. HORNE: I have never once heard the hon. and gallant Member say a word in favour of British interests in Russia.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We can easily settle that matter by looking up the records. I have filled many
columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and there is plenty of proof in this direction in the records of the House. The property owners are now offered the services of a mixed Commission, and until they are satisfied, this loan is not guaranteed and the items in favour of Russia do not come into force. Take the miscellaneous claims. An agreement has been reached on that point. That means, at any rate, that something is coming to the poor governesses and others who lost their property in Russia. There are other similar claims, and are all these things nothing? At any rate, they get a promise of something, and until they do get something Russia does not get anything under the guaranteed loan scheme.
I would like to hear the opinion of those who have claims against Russia in regard to property and the bond-holders on the question whether they would prefer the policy pursued by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as a means of getting something, or the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have tried the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and it has been a disgraceful and blood-stained failure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I could use even stronger language if I had not such a great respect for this House. At present we are only on the threshold of the policy of the Prime Minister. We have had some experience of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne). With regard to the policy of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) I think he saved himself on this subject in his last sentence when he said that he would wait to see the whole agreement in print. We have heard the terms of the agreement and they will at least bring something substantial to British citizens.
Take the question of the fishermen. This may not interest the people of Bournemouth so much because they do not go to sea in trawlers. To the people of Hull, however, this is a matter of great importance, because the catches in the White Sea are extremely valuable. They are able there to get valuable fish at a time when they cannot be got anywhere else, and this means many trawlers employing the finest type of deep-sea fishermen you can find anywhere, and
they will be employed during the months when otherwise they would be laid up. We nearly had a war about this question, and fishing in the White Sea was rendered extremely hazardous. Our fishermen were arrested and suffered damage to their boats, but recently £30,000 compensation has been paid for the losses sustained by our fishermen. Consequently this fishery agreement is of great importance to the fishermen of Hull, and I would like to ask will it come into force immediately?
I would also like to know if the three-mile limit is preserved along the Murmansk Coast. Certain other countries have been claiming a four-mile limit, but I hope that does not come into the agreement. We want to make our plans in Hull for the next winter's fishing. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill) compared the proposed guarantee of a loan to those loans which were made under the auspices of the League of Nations to Austria and Hungary, and he said that there we had some financial control. I would like to point out that Austria and Hungary were beaten enemies in the War. They were in extremis, and had to come for assistance and we were able to impose what terms we liked. Is it suggested by the Conservative party that, if we grant a loan to Russia, we can impose the same conditions as we did on Austria and Hungary? If that is insisted upon we shall never come to any agreement at all.

Sir R. HORNE: The hon. and gallant Member seems to be the only person who is able to speak with knowledge with regard to this Treaty. I would like to ask him have we agreed to give a loan?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The right hon. Gentleman must know that the payment of these claims is dependent upon a loan.

Sir R. HORNE: Surely the hon. and gallant Member knows the distinction between the British Government giving a loan and guaranteeingaloan. In one case they would have to provide the money, and in the other case it is provided by private citizens who would have to insist upon proper guarantees.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Of course, there is no question of the British Government giving a loan—

Sir R. HORNE: Well, that is the impression I got from the hon. and gallant Member.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If I used that word, I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for correcting me. What is proposed is guarantee of the loan by the British Government. That is all we did with Hungary and Austria. The Hungarian loan was placed on the market and it went like hot cakes, because it had a British guarantee. It had the collective guarantee of the Powers behind it.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: I think, under the circumstances, the hon. and gallant. Member is confusing the question of the Austrian loan with the Hungarian loan. The Austrian loan was guaranteed by this country to the extent of 26 per cent. The Hungarian loan was not guaranteed in any shape or form by this country.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It was under the auspices of the League of Nations or under the States members of the League. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] At any rate it is quite irrelevant to the point I am making, that the right hon. Member for Canterbury compared the case of Austria with that of Russia. I say you cannot in any way compare them. A little, beaten, poverty-stricken country like Austria had to take what was offered, but Russia need not make this agreement with us at all. There is a strong party in Russia, it is quite well known, who are opposed to this agreement just as there is a strong party in this House which is opposed to any agreement with Russia—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"]—and the cheers below the Gangway bear me out in that statement. Under this agreement I claim that we have a very great advance from the days of the Trade Agreement and from the Genoa Conference, a very great advance indeed, and I think the Government are very much to be congratulated upon it. [An HON. MEMBER: "We have not seen the agreement yet!"] I have had it explained to me, and I have watched this matter rather closely for weeks or months.

Sir R. HORNE: How much is the loan?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I really do not think I am called upon to answer questions to which the two speakers for the Government have not replied. The Conservative party, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, have expressed themselves as shocked at the proposal to guarantee this loan. I am surprised at their attitude towards the Government guaranteeing this loan. I think it is a very courageous act.

Sir R. HORNE: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will excuse me—

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I have given way to several interruptions, and I might be allowed to bring my few remarks to a close. I think the Cabinet is to be congratulated on its courage in endorsing the principle of guaranteeing a reconstruction loan, which is what this means.

Sir R. HORNE: How much?

10.0 P.M.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The matter is to be determined by further discussion and the amount of compensation for our nationals is necessarily left indeterminate. The claims are inflated as most claims for war or civil-war damage are. This loan will bring direct employment in those areas in this country which are the most hard hit. It will bring a great deal of the money into our industries. It will take an arbitrary sum of £40,000,000—assuming it is £40,000,000—I do not know whether that is the amount that is finally agreed upon, and nobody else knows it—but it will be the makers of agricultural machinery, manufacturers generally, and shipbuilding, engineering where the greatest relief will be felt. I am one of those who consider that all loans that we make largely go out in the form of goods, and this is particularly true in the case of Russia, which is a great market for manufactured goods. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have not made any great attack so far upon the Dawes proposals. The right hon. Gentleman the late Prime Minister has declared himself at one with the present Prime Minister in trying to get the proposals of the Dawes Committee accepted. You are there supporting and re-establishing a formidable trade rival, in Germany.
We have not had anything like the attacks from those benches opposite that we have had on this proposal to do much the same thing in regard to Russia and yet Russia can never be a trade competitor in the same sense that Germany can be. Russia is a great agricultural, mining and lumber producing country and a great absorber of manufactured goods, and Germany is a great manufacturing country like ourselves that has to import greater and greater quantities of food every year to balance her economic Budget. Therefore I am driven to the conclusion that the reason why this attack is made on the proposal to guarantee a reconstruction loan to Russia—in spite of the undoubted benefit to our trade, and in spite of the other side of the bargain which will bring cash to British subjects who suffered great loss and injury as a result of the civil war—is that the real reason is hatred and prejudice for a Government that has carried through a social and economic revolution. That is the real reason, and hon. Gentlemen opposite have not the courage to proclaim it. The last time the right hon. Member for Canterbury spoke he remarked that he would be very glad if an agreement were made with Russia. That was a very hollow sentiment coming from that bench. I do not know if he agreed with me then, I think he agrees with me now. The moment that something is done to bring about a settlement at once appeals to the old prejudices and the old hatreds that were used to the loss and disgrace of this country during the Coalition Government. I ask the Government to stand firm, and if necessary to appeal to the masses of the people in the country. Go to Coventry, go to Birmingham, go to Hull, go to Glasgow, to where men are deteriorating in idleness and put it and—yes, and Barrow—and put it to them that, instead of paying out £1 a week or 30s. to keep these men in idleness, that you propose to use some of the Government's credit to bring work to them to supply even the wicked Russians, and that that is the policy that you oppose. Go down to the country—

Mr. FERGUSON: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it right for the hon. Member to point across the House? He is shaking his hands across to this side.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am obliged for the assistance of the hon. Member.

Mr. FERGUSON: Yes, and you need it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] I am penalised for what is allowed to other Members.

Mr. SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull to address me.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If I waved my right hand, it was due to the state of my feelings on this question. I ask hon. Gentlemen to go to the hard-headed industrial and manufacturing centres and talk the sort of, may I use the word, "nonsense" that we have heard to-night from the opposite benches. Let them put the proposal fairly to men who have been out of work now for two, three and four years, and ask them whether they think the Government are right for once in guaranteeing a loan of reconstruction and peace, when they spent £100,000,000 on war with no result whatsoever—on civil war, which I think was a disgrace to this country—and when they willingly spent thousands of millions on destruction in the late War. Let them ask those men whether they approve of a moderate loan being guaranteed by the Government, which will bring work to those who are idle and suffering to-day, and I wish them well of the result.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think everyone in this House will agree that we have had a Debate that has been interesting and, indeed, almost amazing in its character. The Under-Secretary said rather pathetically on a previous occasion, about a month ago, that he was a Parliamentary target. He is. He is a pathetic figure—a sort of political St. Sebastian, who is full of arrows; but with this difference, that it is his friends and not his opponents who put him in that position. What we wished in this evening's Debate is a thing which we were perfectly entitled to expect, namely, that, before the House is asked to give its consent or approval in any shape or form to proposals of this kind, we should have the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary here in order to explain the position to us. I realise the difficulties of the Under-Secretary, and I am sure he will not take it as anything
derogatory on my part towards him that we should, naturally, criticise the situation in which the whole House has been placed by the perfectly amazing Debate that has developed this evening.
Here we are, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has said, asked to deal with a question of absolutely first-rate importance on the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, right at the fag end of the Session, when we have already passed a Government Motion for rising to morrow. We are asked to debate this matter without having had any of the pertinent papers put before us whatsoever. That is amazing enough, and yet, if the House will reflect, it is only a part of what has been the consistent action of the Government—an action of consistent evasion with regard to the whole of this Russian Conference from the beginning. If ever there was an amazing contrast, it is between what has been happening with regard to the Russian Conference and what has been happening with regard to the Inter-Allied Conference, about which there was a Debate yesterday. In that case every item of interest has been published in the daily papers day by day, with absolute frankness and fullness. What difficulties there have been have been made known to the public; what doubts there have been have not been concealed. There have been conflicts of opinion, and they have been expressed. There have been endeavours to reach an arrangement, and arrangements have been reached, and all of them from day to day have been published without reserve in the Press. There has been the blaze of a searchlight on everything that has happened with regard to the Inter-Allied Conference, and all with good results.
Here, on the other hand, if there has been any light at all on the negotiations from start to finish it has been a sort of smoky light like that of a farthing dip, if such a thing still exists, which has only served to distort the little that could be seen. If I might say one thing, it is to congratulate the Government on having excelled any of their predecessors in one respect, and that is in the polite art of Parliamentary evasion with regard to this question. The whole House has been treated with a disingenuousness over this question of the Russian Con-
ferenee which I do not think has been excelled or equalled in the case of any negotiations that have preceded it. We have had continued evasion with regard to any statement being made in this House, and when I make these allegations I am prepared to back them up by absolute proof in each case. In the first place, we were told that we could not have a statement in this House because the Prime Minister did not know what was coming up. That was at the beginning. As soon as anything came up, we were not allowed to have a statement then, because he would not make a statement until there were points of substance which justified his bringing the matter before the House. Then, when points of substance had arisen, we could not have a statement because he wanted to deal with them all together, and did not want to deal with any one of them separately. All this has been stated in reluctant answers to Parliamentary questions.
Then we had a definite promise on behalf of the Prime Minister that he would come and speak to the House himself on a question of this kind. I am sure the Under-Secretary will not think that I mean it in any ill-sense towards him when I say that he knows as well as I or anyone knows that it is only the Prime Minister, if he comes to this House, who can give the answer with absolute authority. Only the Prime Minister can say that this shall be done or that shall not be done, that he will adjourn this Debate, and that he will not make a treaty until the House has been able to give its decision. Time after time we have had a definite promise that he would come, but we have never had the Prime Minister here from the beginning of the Russian Conference up to the present day. I have no doubt that a month ago it was an awkward time, and that at present it is an awkward time. It always is an awkward time with the Russian Conference when we want the Prime Minister here. It is always jam yesterday and jam to-morrow, but never jam to-day. Lastly—and here again may I reiterate the quite definite statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. McNeill)—we really were promised that no treaty or treaty obligation should be entered into. Upon that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has already spoken, and I will say just another word
or two upon it in a minute. That is the state of darkness in which we are.
I want to repeat once again quite clearly, as the attack has always been made—it was made by the junior Member for Dundee (Mr. Morel) before it was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut. - Commander Kenworthy) this evening—that we want to sabotage any agreement with Russia—

Mr. MILLS: On a point of Order. May I ask what is the difference between a "junior Member" and an hon. Member? That is a very offensive observation.

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not hear any offensive remark.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am sure the Member for Dundee will realise—

Mr. MILLS: I understood the right hon. Gentleman, in referring to two Members of the House, to say that one was the "junior Member for Dundee."

Mr. SPEAKER: It is the usual practice when reference is made to the junior Member of a constituency which returns two Members—[Interruption.] Hon. Members will please keep order, and allow me to perform my duty, instead of doing it for me. In such a case it is always the practice of this House to refer to the Member who was returned at the head of the poll as the senior Member, and to the other as the junior Member.

Sir A. STEEL MAITLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a rather illustrative instance, is it not, of the way in which criticisms are sometimes directed at us when we are endeavouring to put a case before the House. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Morel) will realise that I should be the last to say anything disrespectful to him in that regard. When we come to the actual case under discussion, we have had darkness during the whole of these negotiations, and, now that we have come to the end of them, the darkness, the perplexity, the confusion is greater than it has ever been before. Employment! Not a word have we had about it. Not a word have we had about guarantees for work-giving employment in this country of any sort or kind. We do
not know the amount of the loan. We do not know the conditions of the loan. We do not know whether we are going to have any repayment of the loan. All we know—I am the last person to wish to say anything disrespectful of a foreign country—is that one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful of all the people in that country has openly given us a warning that if we make a loan of this kind we can look for no guarantee of repayment whatsoever. The statement is that of Mr. Zenovieff. He denies that the Communist party is opposed to the introduction of foreign capital into Russia—
Let England offer us a loan of £500,000,000 and they will see how much we hate foreign capital. If capital wishes it, we will guarantee there will be no revolution in Russia, but we will not guarantee that revolution will not occur in other countries. MacDonald was once one of Lenin's disciples, like the rest of us. Therefore, he knows the Communist movement. We will not ask guarantees from us for the repayment of loans, and we will not give guarantees.
That is with regard lo the loan. We are completely in the dark with regard to the other main parts of this business. How about the money under Article 10 of the Krassin Agreement? What is going to he done with regard to that? We have heard nothing with regard to it, Can the Under-Secretary tell us what is happening? Does he know what is happening?

Mr. PONSONBY: The hon. Baronet is asking so many questions that I do not know whether he wants me to interrupt every time. Article 10 of the Trade Agreement will remain in force until the Treaty is signed.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon. We get more information by eliciting little bits as we go along than we do in any other way. Now with regard to export credits. We are told the Russian Government is going to get the benefit of export credits. I should like to have another piece of information, and I am ready to give way to the Under-Secretary if he will give it to us. Is there going to be any interference at all with the functions of the Committee that rules the Export Credit Department in this, or are they going to be allowed to decide the issue as to giving export credits in the same way as hitherto to Russia as to other places?

Mr. PONSONBY: There will be no interference with the Committee performing its functions as it has done hitherto.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Then all I can say is that you will never get any credits of any sort or kind whatsoever. This is as much a fake as the whole of the rest of it. The reason is that, under the export credit system, as the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade knows quite well, the amount of security that the people who want the exports can put up is assessed by the Committee at its proper worth, and therefore the amount the Government will contribute is reduced proportionately if they do not think much of it, and they also impose a premium that is higher according to the risk.
We have been told there is a most stringent condition about propaganda. We know nothing more about that. All we know is that we have had the Krassin Agreement broken with regard to propaganda time and time again. Lastly, may I ask about the creditors of Russia—the bondholders? Are they the sterling bondholders, the rouble bondholders, one or other, or both? The Under-Secretary could not tell us, at the time the Debate opened, whether this agreemnt will apply to the sterling bondholders or the rouble bondholders, one or other, or both. To whom will it apply? What happens with regard to the French bondholders and the Dutch bondholders? Is this going to apply to them? They stand on exactly the same footing as our own sterling bondholders.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I interrupt the hon. Member? I gave way to him. Are we to understand that he would hold up the agreement for the sake of the Dutch or the French bondholders?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not certain for whom the hon. and gallant Member is speaking. I am speaking for the Opposition. I have asked individual bondholders, and they have told me that when their claims are exactly of the same character as the French bondholders and the Dutch bondholders they do not want to be treated separately from other people whose claims in justice are precisely the same as their own. Those views were put to me by
leading men in the City. Now as to the miscellaneous claims. By whom are they to be paid? Who is going to settle them? Is the matter to be left to the immediate future? When these amounts have been actually settled, are they really going to be paid? We have had no information given to us on this point.
The absurdity of the whole situation this afternoon has been made absolutely plain. My right hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. McNeill) described it as a farce. I am riot quite certain whether it is going to be a farce or, from another point of view, whether it is going to be a tragedy. If you have promises of this kind made, in the end they will come home to roost. The Russians will say, "Here is the British Government which has made these promises and is not carrying them out." I agree absolutely with the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) with reference to what may happen between the signing of the Treaty and the ratification of the Treaty. What he said was true, that if we sign this Treaty and it is not ratified it will come back upon us from Russia. If we ratify the Treaty we do not get to the end even then. We have to go forward then. Nothing is settled as to the loan, and nothing is settled practically as to anything, even when the Treaty is ratified. Consequently, if there is no loan afterwards and no agreement afterwards with the bondholders, there will be an absolute certainty that Russia will believe that this country has played them false, however little that may be true in fact, and however grossly they may misapprehend what has happened.
The Under-Secretary spoke about the White Paper which he promised to issue. I realise the difficulties under which he has been labouring, but I would point out that it was promised on behalf of the Foreign Office that the White Paper, with the two draft Treaties, should be laid and should be published, and we have a right to ask why it was not published. There is only one real reason, and that is that between the time when the Conference was said to have broken down and the time when it was hurriedly patched up again to-day there have been alterations in the draft. I think this House is entitled to know precisely what
the alterations were. The Under-Secretary quoted from a paper this afternoon and, subject to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I submit that when anyone quotes from a paper in this House it has to be laid on the Table of this House. Therefore I ask that the papers from which he quoted should be laid on the Table of this House. I understand that the Under-Secretary says that he will lay on the Table the paper from which he quoted this afternoon.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: When?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is printed and we are entitled to have that paper now.

Mr. PONSONBY: I think that I can satisfy hon. Members opposite, because I do not suppose that they are inclined to be unreasonable about this matter. The Treaty was set up in type, and if negotiations had broken off the Treaty as then presented would have been laid before this House. Negotiations were resumed and it would have been very misleading of me to have laid before this House something which was incorrect. I am obliged to have it corrected, and as anybody knows, when you have two or three pages to correct it takes a little time, but it will be circulated to-morrow morning.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The point is that we want the uncorrected proof. We want to know whether we can have the document from which the hon. Member quoted. We want to have the Paper which the Under-Secretary undertook should be laid. I respectfully ask whether, as this has been promised by the Prime Minister, and as the Under-Secretary has quoted from it, we are not entitled to have it laid?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is raising a question which should be raised at the time when the quotation was made from the Paper. I do not think that there was any request made then to have the Paper laid. At any rate, it was not made in my presence.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: You may not have been present at the time, but it was asked for. I asked for it myself, and we are still in the course of the same Debate. Are we not entitled to have it laid before us to-night?

Mr. SPEAKER: As I have said, that is a claim that must be made at the time. I am prevented from dealing with the matter if the claim is only made subsequently. I never heard the claim made. It should be made at the time, and then the Chair always deals with it.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The argument was raised in answer, I think, to an appeal which I made, and it was an interruption to my speech. I certainly asked that the whole of the documents should be published. I did not claim it in form under the Rule of the House, but I asked immediately that the whole of the documents should be published and before the House began its Debate on the Adjournment to-morrow.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I put it to you, Sir, that this is not a case within the meaning of the old-established Rule? Here you have a Treaty which was under discussion, in which negotiations were brokers off on one particular article. In the new Treaty, which is being made, that Article has been corrected. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs quoted one Article which has not been altered in the new Treaty, and the fact that he quoted from this Article which has not been altered, is no reason for laying the old Treaty which has been altered.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: On that point of Order. I was present. I quite agree that I did not get up and claim that the document should be laid on the Table, but I did say, "That document ought to be laid." One knows how one says it. I said it quite audibly to those who were sitting near me, although I did not formally make the claim. With reference to what the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has said, may I say that there is a very real point here. Let me be quite candid about it. Here is a draft Treaty which was put into print, and from it the Under-Secretary read one of the Articles. Apparently, that Treaty was not concluded; it broke down, or, rather, the negotiations on it broke down. Then something happened and a new Treaty was negotiated. This House ought to see what are the differences between the old proposal and the new Treaty. We ought to see what points have been conceded by the Government, and what points in the original
negotiations the Russian representatives refused to agree to.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is quite clear that this is not a point which comes under the Rules of the House. What I stated originally is quite correct. The claim for production of a document must be made at the moment. There is no case of departure from that Rule. I understood from the statement just now that the Article which has been quoted is in a document which has been laid. [HON. MEMBERS: "It has not been laid!"] In any case, I must maintain the old practice of the House, namely, that the claim for production of a document must be made at the moment.

Sir A. STEEL - MAITLAND: With reluctance, I accept that decision absolutely. But what a position the House is in! [Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not possible to conduct a debate on a matter of such very high importance if hon. Members are interrupting all the time.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I do not mind the interruptions. Hon. Members remind me of the skylark, which
Pourest its full heart
In profuse strains of unpremeditated art.
The situation is this: Because we have not risen, and demanded the document at the moment, the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs does not consent to lay it on the Table. The next point which it is well for the House to remark is that the Prime Minister on Monday promised to lay the Paper and never published it. So that we have not yet had this Paper, and what we naturally ask ourselves is, "What is the reason for this further reticence?" This matter is of absolutely first-rate importance. We on this side and right hon. and hon. Members below the Gangway opposite are anxious to do this: The House, we know, is absolutely free when the time comes to ratify or not to ratify the Treaty. It is a matter of exceeding gravity to refuse to ratify if the Government insist on going into it. An hon. Member said that no Government has ever considered itself debarred from agreeing to a Treaty until it has laid its case before the House. I suggest that if ever a Government had need to be careful in a matter of this kind, it is the present Government. The present Government
again and again have said that they stand in a peculiar position because they do not command a majority in this House. They do not accept the ordinary defeats on which another Government would resign as being defeats which call for their resignation because they say they do not command a majority in the House. Does not that mean that when there is this very striking unanimity of opinion both on the Liberal Benches and on these benches—with the exception of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull—that the Government should weigh matters once, twice and thrice before signing this Treaty to-morrow.
Here I come to my last question. I wonder if the Treaty has even yet been reduced to writing? I do not believe the Treaty is yet in writing; I do not believe the Under-Secretary has yet seen the completed draft. Would not the Government do well, in these circumstances, after the history of their attitude through the whole of this Session in these Debates, to think carefully before they sign a Treaty like this to-morrow? Let us make it quite plain, not only to the people of Russia if they can hear us, but to the delegates who are here to-day from Russia, that if this Treaty is not signed ultimately, it is not we who are responsible and not the Liberal party. The responsibility lies with the Government which goes into this matter knowing it is in a minority and knowing there is an extraordinary consensus of opinion regarding it and yet would insist on signing to-morrow a Treaty not in completed draft even at this moment. I appeal to the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. I put it to him in all sincerity. Does he feel that he is entitled, in these circumstances, to press the House to come to a conclusion on this Treaty to-night; does he feel that he should sign that Treaty to-morrow? I respectfully submit to him, after what has happened to-day, that he should suggest to the Prime Minister that it would be well to adjourn this Debate until to-morrow, until we could all see the Treaty, until we could study it and until the Prime Minister, who is the final authority in this matter, is prepared to give us his mature decision, one way or the other. I am quite sure, from the point of view of the good name of this country, and the confidence of this delegation and of the country from which they come, that we
will keep to our engagements, that would be a much wiser course than to treat this House with such want of respect as to try to get this Treaty signed to-morrow before anyone knows what is in it.

Mr. PONSONBY: By leave of the House I intervene now in order to answer questions which have been put to me in the course of the Debate. I quite realised that a Debate without papers being laid would be a very difficult thing, and I made the suggestion that the Debate should not take place till to-morrow in order that some papers might be before the House, but I understood that that was not wished, and I was anxious to meet the wishes of hon. Members. The paper will be laid to-morrow.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Will it be circulated with the Papers to-morrow?

Mr. PONSONBY: I cannot actually say that. There is no mystery about this, and, as a matter of fact, we are not misleading the House by not giving a correct version of the Treaty. When you are in course of negotiations it is not a matter of one single draft, but of draft after draft being brought forward for discussion, and being altered, and changed, and re-written. I do not think it would afford the House the smallest enlightenment if I were to give them any of the many Clauses that have been under discussion, and it is much more satisfactory that they should arrive at a decision when they have had the full document before them. On the whole, I must say I thought I should be in for a very much rougher crossing than I have had. I thought that I should be drenched with criticism, that I should be entirely unable to answer. Instead of that, I feel greatly encouraged. With the exception of the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell), who made a very interesting and serious contribution to the Debate, there was really nothing in the very eloquent and violent language which was levelled at this proposal and the method by which I had informed the House of it. The right hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. R. McNeill), with his knowledge of the Foreign Office, really made a most curious statement about the habitual practice in regard to treaties. Treaties are not discussed in the middle of negotiations.

Mr. McNEILL: I was speaking entirely of the pledges given in this particular, and having regard to the statements of the hon. Member himself as to the line of policy which he would pursue.

Mr. PONSONBY: The promise made was that Papers would be laid, and the only Paper of any use would be the Treaty itself, which could only be laid after it had been signed, or at the moment of signature. This is being done. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) made a very telling and interesting speech, and he received the most uproarious cheers I have heard for a very long time from hon. Members opposite. He fortunately had no looking-glass in front of him to notice the features of the hon. Members behind him. He taunted me, but I do not think there is anything of great substance in what he said. He actually asked that the Papers that are to be laid before the House should be published previously in the newspapers to-morrow morning, as if that was a possible suggestion to make, as if we could send to the newspapers documents which it was the right of this House to have first. He then got into a turbulent state of indignation with regard to the statement I made on the subject of the Russian war debt, and he scoffed at the idea that the Russian war debt should ever be written down or reserved. It happens that at Genoa he made both propositions himself.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I asked for information as to what it was to be written down by. At Genoa there was agreement between all the Allies—France, Belgium, Italy, as well as this country. There the actual figure was agreed to between all the Allies, and the figure was a specific one in respect of certain compensations. But the figure is not given here, and I ask now, will the hon. Gentleman tell us what the figure is?

Mr. PONSONBY: I have no right to complain of the interruption of the right hon. Gentleman. The questions of the Russian War Debt arid of the Soviet counter claims have both been reserved. There were some specific questions asked me by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. He complained of the darkness which surrounded this subject. I own I have not had my full share of the limelight lately. There were other events
of a more interesting and, perhaps, more important character going on, and the newspaper men mostly passed me by with their notebooks and with their cameras, in order to see the more important people and write about them. I really do not think I ought to be blamed for not forcing myself on the newspapers, and for not insisting on the Press visiting me daily at the Foreign Office. I have always been ready to give them any information I can, but there has been no sort of publicity about these negotiations. The negotiations have been very largely conducted by way of conversations, and when these conversations took place I have not invited a score of pressmen to come along and watch me. The important point is that the House of Commons should have the full facts before them. The important thing with regard to the loan is that the House of Commons will have full control over it. There is to be another Treaty arising out of this Treaty which is to be discussed, and there will be a Financial Resolution and a Bill, which means six stages for discussion before the loan materialises. Therefore, this House has got complete control, and will have ample opportunity for discussing it, whenever it wants to. The hon. Member for the City said he was very doubtful whether we should be fortunate enough to get the money raised, even with the Government guarantee, and anything on a subject of this sort coming from him one is naturally disposed to treat seriously.

Mr. E. C. GRENFELL: I am afraid I did not make myself clear. What I said was that if you do raise a loan here, it will reduce the amount for other purposes, and that if you place a loan in a country where there is very little probability of it being returned, you had better lend the money direct out of your own pocket rather than issue it as a guarantee.

Mr. PONSONBY: I did not misunderstand the hon. Member. It was the last part of what he has just stated that I was referring to. He said: "Be under no illusions about your guarantees. It will mean your having to pay money yourselves." There are three settlements to be made before the loan can materialise, and if the Government are satisfied on those three points, that is to say, if the bondholders have been fairly met, that there is a lump sum to meet
miscellaneous claims, and that the property owners have had a settlement which is satisfactory and which the Government can accept, that will make a great difference to Russian credit. It will be seen that the Soviet Government really mean to pay up. I think the whole attitude of the hon. Member himself, and the City, and the financiers, will undergo considerable change. I have been very much interested at the attitude of what is called "the City." People are apt to talk of the City as if it were an entity or an individual. It is composed of a lot of sections, and these sections are not by any means co-operating. They are very often acting in direct conflict.
There are three sets of people I have come across. There are the people who are interested in the debts because they want payment—immediate payment and immediate cash. There are the people who are interested in the bonds, but they do not want immediate payment; they do not believe the Soviet Government is going to last, and they are ready to wait a year or a generation in order eventually to realise, if they can, 100 per cent. Then there are people who have no debts, who are not interested in the bondholders or the property owners, but they believe in the future of Russia; they believe in the enormous potentialities of Russia and are very anxious to put new money into Russia. All those three sections are working in the City, and when I come across one man with a gloomy face, I go round the corner and see another man with a cheerful face. It has been very enlightening, but it has by no means discouraged me in the task which I have been trying to carry out. The hon. Member who has just sat down contrasted the procedure on this matter with the Inter-Allied Conference. I do not think there is any analogy between the two. When the Prime Minister decided to rest this matter on my shoulders, I felt it was a very great responsibility, and that it would be difficult for me to justify it in the House of Commons. I felt, also, that I could trust the generosity of the House of Commons not to regard my position as absolutely untenable.

Mr. McNEILL: I would like to ask my hon. Friend, as he is speaking about his position, whether he is prepared to
accede to the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Erdington (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) regarding adjourning this Debate in order that the Prime Minister may consider—

Mr. PONSONBY: I do not think I am prepared to do that. Judging by the Debate I do not think there are any points raised which would justify the Prime Minister in leaving his present work to intervene here. Moreover, on the Adjournment it will be quite possible to continue this subject if need be. No doubt the business might be adjourned in order that the Prime Minister might answer any question which might be addressed to him.

Mr. McNEILL: The point of the question does not lie in the continuation of this discussion. The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) was that, under all the circumstances of this Debate, if it were known to the Prime Minister, he would probably take the decision that it would be unwise to sign this Treaty to-morrow.

Mr. PONSONBY: I feel quite confident that, when I give an account of this Debate to my right hon. Friend, he will offer me his hearty congratulations. I do not think there is any other point on which I need touch.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: There is the question of the territorial waters for the fishing fleet. Will our fishermen be allowed to fish up to three nautical miles of the Russian coast?

11.0 P.M.

Mr. PONSONBY: I want to make it clear that the territorial waters question is not settled. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is settled?"] I do not suppose hon. Members opposite, or in any part of the House, thought that this was going to be an International Convention for the settlement of the territorial waters question. There are other hon. Members who want to continue this Debate. I feel I have been handicapped to a large extent by not having the draft of the Treaty laid before the House in its printed form. I feel that when this Treaty is examined, hon. Members will see that it is a very great advance on the lines towards a reconciliation between these two countries. Really, I think, there is a little bit too
much scoffing at Russia, and a tendency to consider that the whole Russian people are represented by one or two Members of the Soviet Government. I have never pretended that the Soviet Government offers any kind of attraction for the British people, but it should be recognised that there is a great difference in temperament between us and the Russians, and we should not judge them according to our own standard. Their system of Government is very different from ours, which is gradually drifting away from being capitalistic. The adjustment of the differences in the systems, laws and political institutions of the two countries has been one of the great difficulties which I have had to encounter in coming to this agreement. I believe that what has been done will not only benefit Russia and increase her credit and trade, but it will do a great deal to lessen the heavy burden of unemployment in our country. Most of all it will bring about a reconciliation and a healing of wounds which will make all other problems a great deal more easy to deal with in the future.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: We have just listened to another interesting speech from the Under-Secretary, and I congratulate him upon his imperturbable serenity. I hope, however, that the Government is not going to let this country down. The Government appear determined to sign this Treaty in face of the fact that there appears to be a majority of the House of Commons against it. That is how it appears to me. They are taking a course which, in my view, will be understood by the Russian people to mean that this is an agreement to guarantee a loan to Russia. I remember what happened in this matter in the days of the Genoa Conference when the only condition upon which the Russian representative would consider any admission of debts or responsibility for the past was that we should make a Government loan to Russia. They have always claimed that whatever they may do in the way of recognition of past indebtedness shall be a sum lower than that which they can borrow in this country. If we allow the Government to proceed to sign this Treaty it is going to mislead the Russian people. The Prime Minister not being present at these Debates, does not realise the responsibility that the hon. Gentleman
is lightly taking on his behalf. The Prime Minister ought to be here in this House before he determines to proceed with these negotiations. I therefore ask you, Sir, to accept a Motion for the Adjournment of this Debate, so that it may continue to-morrow in the presence of the Prime Minister.

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): Before any decision is given by you, Sir, on that request, may I submit, or recall, that about 4 o'clock to-day I drew attention to the inevitable absence of the up-to-date Paper on this question, and to the fact that there might be some question raised as to the desirability of not proceeding with the Debate. I submit that, having continued the Debate for this length of time, it is scarcely reasonable to argue the view that we should hear the opinion of the Prime Minister before the House rises to-night. I make the alternative suggestion that, if the opinion of the Prime Minister is desired on the subject of this Treaty before it is signed to-morrow, let a Private Notice question be put to the Prime Minister, which he can be here to answer to-morrow forenoon, and in that way all the desires of the House will be met.

Mr. McNEILL: I suggest that the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman has made does not really meet the ease, because, as the right hon. Gentleman will see, a Private Notice question to the Prime Minister would not and could not put him in possession of the feeling of the majority of the House about this question. What we desire is that the Debate itself should continue in the presence of the Prime Minister to-morrow, assuming that he could possibly come to the House, in order that he might appreciate really the position before taking the responsibility for himself and the whole of his Government in signing this Treaty.

Mr. C LYNES: Might I say further, that clearly it would be impossible for the Prime Minister to be here to-night for a period long enough to enable him personally to ascertain what is the feeling of the House. To-morrow morning is allotted for the Adjournment Motion—

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: On a point of Order. There is an important discussion going on in regard to a very important matter and a Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate has been moved. I
submit that we ought to have your decision upon it, because there are a few of us who would like to put reasons to the Government why they should assent to this course before they take the very serious responsibility of signing a Treaty of the character outlined by the Under-Secretary.

Mr. SPEAKER: In the first place, I may point out that the House may further pursue this question on the Motion for the Adjournment To-morrow. Secondly, I am debarred from accepting this Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate, because the House has already, earlier in the day, passed a Resolution instructing me what I am to do to-morrow.

Mr. LEIF JONES: The right hon. Gentleman the Deputy Leader of the House and the Under-Secretary do not really seem to realise the point which is most pressing upon me, certainly, and I think upon most Members of the House, and that is that the Treaty should not be signed before the House has had an opportunity of seeing its terms. I understand that the offer of the Deputy Leader of the House is that the Prime Minister will come here before signing the Treaty, when we shall have had an opportunity of seeing the Treaty, which I understand will be published to-morrow morning before the House meets. That is really the point of most importance, and I want to press it upon the Government even at this last moment. I am not opposed to the Treaty. I have not seen it, but I have heard descriptions of it, and I have tried to follow what has appeared in the newspapers, and I believe I am in favour of and not against it. Certainly I am warmly in favour of reaching an understanding with Russia, if it can possibly be reached. But I do say that, with other Members on the Labour Benches, I have time and again complained of Governments signing treaties behind the back of Parliament, when Parliament had not seen them. Now what is the extraordinary position in which we find -ourselves? Here is a treaty, and the Government know what the treaty is, and what arrangements they have reached. It is not yet signed, and they are in a position to do what they have said again and again that they intended to do—to scrap the old procedure in regard to these
treaties. It has been urged against hon. Members opposite by the Under-Secretary that they are following the old practice, but we have condemned the old practice continually.
Now they have the Treaty ready; it is in their hands; it is not signed. What possible argument can they give to us for withholding it from the House before they have signed it? I appeal to them, therefore, to let us have it to-morrow morning, and, when the House meets, let the Prime Minister be here, and let us have the opportunity to raise any points on the Treaty that may occur to us. It can easily be done, even after the Resolution that has been passed to-day. Then they will sign the Treaty, as I am convinced, with the support of a majority of the House, instead of signing it without knowing the opinion of the House in regard to it, and thereby taking away from it a great part of the sanctity which we attach to it. If we get the Treaty in time to enable us to express an opinion in regard to it before it is signed, I think the Government will have fulfilled their undertaking to the country; but if, when the House meets to-morrow, before the Treaty is signed, and if, having in their possession the Treaty which they can submit to the House, they still withhold it from the House and insist on signing it with the House in ignorance of what is in it, they are not fulfilling the promises which they made to the electors.

Captain BOWYER: On a point of Order. You have said, Sir, that you yourself were confined by the Order of the House as to what should take place to-morrow. Is not the Motion regarding to-morrow—which is headed, not "Adjournment of the House," but "Business of the House"—
That this House do meet To-morrow, at Eleven of the Clock; that no Questions shall be taken after Twelve of the Clock; that Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have reported the Royal Assent to the Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses;"—
I submit that that does not refer actually to what is the business of the House, except anyhow between the hours of Eleven and Twelve; and I would submit, further, that it does not lay down what the business is, except that the
business of receiving the Royal Assent Acts of Parliament.

Captain BENN: On that same point of Order. May I read the rest of the Resolution, which the hon. and gallant Member did not read? It goes on—
but that, subject to this condition, Mr. Speaker, at Five of the Clock, shall adjourn the House without Question put.
If that happen, all that we do is to meet the next day, in order to carry any further Adjournment Motion for the holidays. Therefore, I submit to you, with respect, that there is nothing in this Resolution which would prevent to-morrow being devoted to the continuance of the Debate on this matter.

Mr. CLYNES: I quite agree with the view that there is nothing in the Motion to prevent a continuance of the Debate to-morrow. But I am assuming that there are many Members who are interested in other questions, and look forward to to-morrow as an opportunity to debate them. [HON. MEMBERS "Friday!"] I have no objection whatever to that. As to the Prime Minister, I shall represent to him the view of the House with regard especially to the point of the Government not signing the Treaty until hon. Members have had the opportunity that has been promised. That is only in keeping with the earlier announcement. I should hope, having given that assurance, and as, probably, the Prime Minister will be here to-morrow for at least some short period of time, we may secure the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: May I make a suggestion? The ratification cannot take place until the Treaty has lain 21 days on the Table and the right hon. Gentleman has given an undertaking that there shall be an absolutely free and full Debate on the ratification. As that will have to be 21 working days after the House has re-assembled, it will really make no difference if the Government do not sign the Treaty until the House reassembles if need be.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It has been pointed out that this Motion does not indicate the business to be taken tomorrow. It simply decides that we shall rise at five o'clock and meet at an earlier hour. The Government, in the ordinary
course, would put down the business to be taken to-morrow. Their intention was to put clown the Motion for the Adjournment. I believe there is an alternative proposal which is to be submitted. That will be put down at the end of to-day's Sitting. Instead of doing that, if they assent to the adjournment of the Debate on the Appropriation Bill, that will be taken and the Motion for the Adjournment could be taken on Friday. It is very important that the House should have a full opportunity of discussing the matter.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: May I submit to you, Sir, that you take the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate so that we can get an opportunity of hearing the Prime Minister to-morrow, and then indicating what the view of the House is after hearing the Prime Minister, so that he may feel whether or not he is justified in signing this Treaty, or whether it would not be better to postpone it till nearer the ratification? I think, on the point of Order, it is competent to adjourn the Debate. The Appropriation Bill can be put down for to-morrow and the Adjournment Motion either taken after it if there is time or on Friday or some other suitable occasion.

Lieut. - Colonel WOODWARK: The Prime Minister was in the House ten seconds ago and has now left.

Mr. CLYNES: Our securing the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill to-night will in no sense interfere with the continuance of the Debate to-morrow on the Adjournment Motion.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think if the Debate be adjourned to-night, the adjourned Debate will clearly be substituted for the Adjournment Motion to-morrow. I have already been instructed to adjourn the House as soon as the Royal Assent has been given to Acts agreed upon by both Houses—not before five o'clock in any case; it may be later. I think that would be the effect of it. Since that is so, I think that would not conflict with the Motion already passed by the House this afternoon. For that reason, I shall propose to submit to the House the Motion suggested by the right hon. Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans).

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think the right hon. Member for Colchester (Sir L. Worthington-Evans) has truly interpreted the real wish of the Conservative party, and that is to prevent a settlement with Russia.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not in Order on this Motion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If we adjourn this Debate, there will be no opportunity for the House to show its opinion by a vote, because I do not think the House ever votes against the Appropriation Bill. It would stop every service of the Government. The only object, therefore, is to delay proceedings in regard to Russia. The Motion for the Adjournment of the House gives every opportunity to the House to raise these matters, and the right hon. Member for Colchester is seeking, not to get further time for discussion, but to stampede the Government—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member must keep to the Motion before the House.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Am I to understand that on the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate I am out of Order in showing that this is an attempt to prevent this Russian business proceeding? I shall resist the Motion for the Adjournment. There is no practical advantage in adjourning this Debate on the Appropriation Bill, because there can be no division on the Bill. Therefore, I submit that the object to prevent the Government from signing the agreement is not constitutionally practicable. As long as a Government is in office, it appoints certain persons to carry out instruments in the name of His Majesty. The House can ratify afterwards. It cannot prevent a Government signing any sort of instrument it chooses. Therefore, the only effect of this Motion is to delay the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, and it cannot possibly affect the question of whether this Treaty is to be signed or not. The question of ratification is not affected in any way, and I hope the Government will not be intimidated by this attempt. They have more to fear
from the rank and file of their own movement in the country, from the work-people, than they have from hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. REMER: The hon. and gallant Member has given a very novel reason why the Debate should not be adjourned, and I am going to use the very argument which he has given, as a reason why the Debate should be adjourned. The Treaty is to be signed by a Government who have not a majority in this House, and who stand here, obviously, faced with a House to-night which is hostile to their proposals. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] There have been speakers from this side and from the other side, including the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), opposed to the proposals. Therefore, this Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester gives the House of Commons an opportunity of expressing their opinion as to whether this Treaty should be signed to-morrow or not.

Mr. B. SMITH: On a point of Order—

Mr. SPEAKER: The reason why I have taken the unusual course of accepting the Motion of the right hon. Member for Colchester was that the printed document was not in the hands of hon. Members.

Mr. LANSBURY: I wish to oppose the Motion for the Adjournment of this Debate. For good or evil, the House has allowed the Labour party to nominate Ministers to accept the position of government in this country. Certain negotiations have been going on between the Russian Government and the British Government. Certain other negotiations have been going on between the British Government and the Allies in the late War, together with our late enemies. No one in this House has said that before the Prime Minister as Foreign Secretary signed the agreement with France, Italy, Belgium and other countries, it must first come here. Everybody knows that it will come here afterwards to be ratified. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] We have had Debates on that subject, but we have not given the Foreign Secretary instructions as to what he was to do when he meets these gentlemen whom he is meeting, and you have no guarantee as to what he will sign, or will not sign. Therefore, you have left the Government
a free hand. But on this particular question you have allowed the Government to go to the point of agreement—

Mr. REMER: Do not point.

Mr. LANSBURY: It is said that if this Treaty be signed and then thrown over, it will be looked upon as a breach of faith by the British Government. After four months of negotiation, a settlement has been reached. The ordinary proceedings have taken place, and the document is to be signed. Now the right hon. Gentleman says that it is necessary to break faith with the men with whom you have been negotiating. He may say that the House of Commons is going to disagree with what the Government have agreed about. I say that if the Liberal party and the party opposite have come to the conclusion that the Government are not fit to carry on these negotiations, the proper course to adopt is to do the constitutional thing, and throw out the Government.

Sir J. NALL: On a point of Order. In view of the ruling which you, Sir, have given with regard to hon. Members pointing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—will you call on the hon. Gentleman opposite not to point?

Mr. SPEAKER: I did not observe him. It is always my request to hon. Members that they should address me, and not hon. Members opposite. That applies to all speakers, and is an ancient Rule, in this House.

Mr. LANSBURY: I was not aware that I was offending against that rule. I did what is done by thousands of men and women who speak—using my hands to emphasise my remarks. I am perfectly serious in this, because I think an attempt is being made to-right to browbeat Ministers, and to force them to do, not what they wish to do, but what certain people in this House want them to do. If the Government are to retain a shred of self-respect, they must make a stand. No Government worthy of the name ought to allow themselves to be bullied in the way that has been attempted to-night. I hope that the Prime Minister and the rest of the Government will stand firm, and that to-morrow morning they will sign this Convention, unless the House decide otherwise now by its vote against the
Appropriation Bill. Although it is unusual, that is the constitutional way of showing disapproval of the Government. Let the House, if it choose, throw out the Appropriation Bill, and then let Parliament pass the whole of the financial business over again, or go to the country. I am sick and tired of hearing hon. Members who dare not take the only and the proper course of challenging us before the country on these matters by allowing such a vote to be taken. I am certain that, whatever right hon. and hon. Members all around may think, this attempt to trade with Russia, to establish proper relations and peace with Russia, would sweep the country.

Mr. FERGUSON: That is an attempt to frighten the Liberals.

Mr. CLYNES: The course suggested by my hon. Friend who has just spoken might truly be described as very heroic, but, really, it would not help Russia. Those who act for the Government in this matter must admit two things. One is that the White Paper which has been asked for and has been promised ought to he in the hands of Members before this Treaty is signed. I hope that none of my hon. Friends behind me would question that.

Mr. LANSBURY: We do.

Mr. CLYNES: The other is that there is no question whatever of signing this Treaty in the morning. I would not like to be a party to any policy of "rush" which would seek to sign the Treaty against the will of the majority. We shall not be able to test the real Russian issue by such a vote as that which is now suggested—the Adjournment of the Debate. I rose to say that I have been able, since I spoke last, to communicate with the Prime Minister, and in view of the two points which I have just enumerated, and the evident desire of the House that the Prime Minister should be heard on this question before the matter is concluded, the Prime Minister has intimated to me that he thinks the best course would be to accept the Motion for the Adjournment of the Debate, and to resume it to-morrow, in the hope, of course, that the House will be able to adjourn, in the terms of the Motion, at Five o'clock.

Mr. B. SMITH: On a point of Order. May I inquire if the Question to be put
is, "That this House do now adjourn," or "That the Debate be now adjourned"?

Mr. SPEAKER: "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL WAGES BILL.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have to announce to the House that there is a further Message from the Lords, on the Agricultural Wages Bill.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

"That they do not insist upon their Amendments to the Agricultural Wages Bill to which this House has disagreed, but have made Amendments in lieu of certain of them, and they agree to the Amendment to the Bill in lieu of one of their Amendments, without Amendment."

Ordered,
That the Lords Amendments, in lieu of certain Lords Amendments disagreed to by this House, he considered forthwith."—[Mr. Buxton.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 9.—(Appointment and powers of officers.)

Lords Amendment:

In page 9, line 20, after the word "Act," insert "but in the case of a dwelling-house not without reasonable notice."

Mr. BUXTON: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Members of the House who were present at the Debate upon this subject during the afternoon will remember that anxiety was expressed in regard to the right of officers carrying out duties in connection with the wages question to enter the barns or houses of farmers. Though we hardly thought it fully justified by the proposals, a certain amount of feeling was expressed against what was thought to be an invasion of the farmers' house by officials of the Ministry. We are not anxious to cause alarm in any man's house nor do we wish to act harshly; therefore we now ask this House to agree with this Amendment which is proposed with the object of safe-
guarding the farmer against these difficulties. The Clause now runs:
Any officer so appointed shall have power… to enter at all reasonable times any premises or place for the purpose of such inspection or for the enforcement of this Act;"—
and it is proposed to insert at that point the new words
but in the case of a dwelling-house not without reasonable notice.

CLAUSE 16.—(Definitions).

Lords Amendment:

In page 11, leave out lines 22 to 26 inclusive.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment also relates to a matter which was fully discussed when the Bill was previously before the House. The House then disagreed with the Lords Amendment which sought to leave in the words of the paragraph down to the word "incapable" and which would therefore have given two interpretations of the expression "able-bodied man," thus leading to confusion. The Lords now suggest the deletion of the whole of this paragraph which means that the Bill will be left with one definition, and we feel that for the purposes of the Bill one definition is sufficient. Wages will be fixed for able-bodied men, and the only variation will be by the system of permits, which is covered by the definition in Clause 2, Sub-section (3). We feel the Bill will not be materially prejudiced by the deletion of the words indicated in the Amendment.

Mr. FOOT: Do I understand that this definition is to be removed from the Bill altogether?

Mr. SMITH: The definition in Clause 16 will be removed entirely, but the words in Clause 2, Sub-section (3), remain to guide the committees in the granting of permits.

Orders of the Day — MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

London Traffic Bill,—That they have agreed to the Amendment to the Amendment, upon which the Lords had insisted, to the London Traffic Bill, without Amendment.

Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill,—That they do not insist upon their Amendments to the Housing (Financial Provisions) Bill to which this House has disagreed, and agree to the Amendment to one of their Amendments and to the consequential Amendments to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SILICOSIS) BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: Might we have some assurance from the Government with regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) last night, as, to the need for consolidating this Bill, as it is quite unintelligible by itself'? It is intended for the benefit of working men; and until a Consolidating Bill has been brought forward, it will remain unintelligible.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Rhys Davies): The Government appreciate the point raised by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) yesterday, but I hope the hon. Member will not press me to-night, at any rate, to promise any consolidating legislation. The matter is in the mind of the Government, and will receive attention in due course.

Orders of the Day — SEEDS ACT (1920) AMENDMENT BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of 10 and 11 Geo. 5, c. 54.)

Mr. BLUNDELL: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, after the word "Act," to insert the words
for making or causing to be made a false statement as to the class or variety of seed potatoes.
This Amendment is moved at the request of the Minister of Agriculture. On the understanding that I accept the Amendment, he agrees to the Bill.

Captain BENN: I do not want to interfere with the progress of the Bill, but it is a private Member's Bill, and I know nothing about it. I have no side in the matter, but I do not think we ought to pass the Bill in the middle of the night without some official explanation. It is unusual to take a private Member's Bill after 11 o'clock, without any explanation from the Government.

Mr. W. R. SMITH: In response to that appeal, I would state that the Bill as originally introduced was applicable to all the seeds covered by the original Act. The Ministry, when it was approached on this matter, felt that it could not give its sanction or support to a Bill which was so far-reaching as that, especially as we undersood that the real cause for the introduction of the Bill was confined to potatoes. I think the reason for urgency is because, in the Autumn Session, it will be too late to cover the purchase of potato seeds for the next season. I may mention here that a definite and specific case has arisen which has justified this development, where seeds were purchased and a guarantee given, and then, in the growing of them, it was discovered that they were in only a very small percentage according to the specification given at the time of their purchase. When the case was taken up by way of prosecution, it was found that a six months' limit precluded any action being taken, because, as I understand the question, it is six months after the time at which the seeds are purchased, and if they be purchased in the latter part of the year, then the result, as far as defining whether or not
they are according to specification is concerned, cannot be determined until they have been grown in the field. Therefore, the purpose and intention of the Bill is to-carry out what really was intended in the original Act.

Captain BENN: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation, and I have no desire to obstruct the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Short title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — ELIZABETH FRY REFUGE AND REFUGE FOR THE DESTITUTE BILL.

Order [2nd June] that the Bill be committed to a Standing Committee, read and discharged.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Robert Richardson.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Ten Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.